Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />1 <br />2 <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />The Regional Water Board has not analyzed the broader <br />environmental impacts of the new requirements. <br /> <br />3 More than one witness testified at the October 14, 2009 hearing that the imposition of rigid <br /> <br /> <br />4 new LID requirements could actually have an adverse environmental impact, by discouraging <br /> <br />5 environmentally responsible infill projects. (See, e.g., Tr. at 121-23: "We have strong concerns that <br /> <br />6 fully implementing this requirement on certain types of projects will be very difficult. In fact, <br /> <br /> <br />7 complying with the LID requirement as it is written may not be possible for some projects and may <br /> <br />8 deter responsible redevelopment.") Witness testimony also supported revisions to the Final Tentative <br /> <br /> <br />9 Order suggested by Regional Water Board members to allow greater flexibility in choosing from <br /> <br />10 among environmentally sound treatment methods by eliminating language in the penn it that <br /> <br />11 discourages the use ofbioremediation. (See, e.g., Tr. at pp. 105, 120, 124, 130.) These revisions <br /> <br />12 were not included. <br /> <br /> <br />13 Because these provisions relating to LID and trash removal exceed MEP, they are not exempt <br /> <br />14 from the requirements ofCEQA pursuant to section 13389 of the Water Code. Thus, these and other <br /> <br />15 potential environmental impacts of these provisions must be analyzed before they may be applied <br /> <br />16 solely pursuant to the authority provided under state law. <br /> <br />17 <br />18 <br /> <br />4. <br /> <br />The new LID provisions violate the prohibition on specifying the <br />means of compliance. <br /> <br />19 Throughout the MRP development process, a number of commenters and witnesses objected <br /> <br />20 to the prescriptiveness of this permit. For example, the replacement in the final MRP of more <br /> <br />21 flexible approaches to responsible development that have previously been endorsed by the State <br />22 Water Board with more rigid, proscriptive LID requirements that severely limit options available to <br />23 pennittees in planning new development and redevelopment projects was the subject of specific <br /> <br />24 testimony at the October 14 adoption hearing. (See, e.g., Tr. at pp. 60-61.) At least one Regional <br /> <br />25 Water Board member admitted at that hearing that he felt the Regional Water Board was ''treading in <br /> <br /> <br />26 dangerous territory here, from my perspective, in specifying the method and means of compliance." <br /> <br />27 (Tr. at p. 171.) The member was correct. The Water Code expressly prohibits pennit terms that <br /> <br />28 specify the means of compliance. Water Code ~ 13360 (''No waste discharge requirement or other <br /> <br />sf-2748053 <br /> <br />18 <br />PETITION FOR REVIEW <br />