AgdaPkt 2009-11-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7 Page 1 1 . A requirement that the municipal permittees produce a report determining feasibility or infeasibility of LID measures within the next 18 months; 2 . A requirement that the municipal permittees propose an LID treatment reduction 3 Special Project credit system within one year for projects that have demonstrated environmental benefits to allow a portion of the storm water runoff onsite to be 4 treated by non-LID, or so-called "conventional," treatment measures. 8 5 (Final Tentative Order, sections C.3.c(i)(2)(b); C.3.c(ii); C.3.e(iL).) 6 The Final Tentative Order also introduced, without more meaningful opportunity for 7 comment or analysis, prescriptive and burdensome new structural requirements for the capture and 8 containment of trash. Regional Water Board staff acknowledged that these new provisions would be 9 costly to permittees; it estimated that the associated capital cost alone will be around $28 million 10 dollars over the permit term, and further admitted that it has identified only $5 million in available 11 funds. (Appendix D to Final Tentative Order, at p. 6.) 12 Despite the extensive and substantive nature of the changes from the February 2009 Tentative 13 Order, the Regional Water Board accepted no further written public comments or evidence. Instead, 14 participation by the permittees who would be subject to these burdensome new requirements was 15 limited to five-minute oral testimony at the Regional Water Board's October 14,2009 hearing on the 16 MRP. (Transcript of October 14,2009 Hearing (hereinafter "Tr."). The Regional Water Board's 1 7 statement that these revisions were the "outgrowth of comments" submitted by Permittees and other 18 interested persons is not accurate, is an oversimplication of the changes, and does not justify the 19 refusal to allow written comments on these revisions. 20 During the hearing, members of the Regional Water Board and the witnesses who testified 21 agreed that the new provisions were significantly different from the draft discussed at the May 2009 22 hearing. (See, e.g., Tr. at p. 31 (comments of Mr. Moore: "particularly between the pilot project 23 work you just discussed, and the low impact development requirements. Because I think they both 24 progressed very - on a pretty significant pace since May.") A witness for a group favoring the new 25 trash provisions testified that the changes were not just significant but "historic." (Tr. at p. 78 26 27 28 8 This could relate to Brownfield Sites, low-income housing, senior citizen housing, transit oriented development projects and other infill or redevelopment projects. sf-27480S3 9 PETITION FOR REVIEW