Docstoc

Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program

Document Sample
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Powered By Docstoc
					                                                             MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
                                                                          HANDOUT PACKET



          Santa Clara Valley
          Urban Runoff
          Pollution Prevention Program
Campbell • Cupertino • Los Altos • Los Altos Hills • Los Gatos • Milpitas • Monte Sereno • Mountain View • Palo Alto
        San Jose • Santa Clara • Saratoga • Sunnyvale • Santa Clara County • Santa Clara Valley Water District


                                            June 16, 2005 Meeting

                         MATERIALS FOR REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
II. June 16, 2005 MC Meeting Agenda

III. May 19, 2005 MC Meeting Minutes

IV. May 19, 2005 Action Items

VIII.C. Program Budget

    1. Budget AHTG Meeting Summary, May 31, 2005

VII.D. Urban Runoff Management Plan

    1. Response to Water Board Comments on the FY 03-04 Annual Report with Attachments,
       June 3, 2005
    2. Memorandum from John Fusco and Jill Bicknell, re: FY 04-05 Annual Report Preparation
       Guidance, June 15, 2005

VII.F. Outreach Activities

    1. WEO/PI/P Ad Hoc Task Group Meeting Summary Report, June 2, 2005

    2. WE&O – Watershed Watch Campaign – FY 04-05 – May 2005 Activity Report and Website
       Statistics, from Lois Humphreys, TRG & Associates, June 2, 2005

    3. Watershed Watch Partnerships Added-Value Resources Chart, May 2005

    3. Conducting Stormwater Treatment Best Management Practices Maintenance and
       Inspections Workshop Agenda, June 9, 2005

VII.G. Watershed Management Initiative Activities

    1. Watershed Management Initiative Core Group Minutes – June 2, 2005
VII.H. Other Ad-Hoc Task Groups

   1. C3PO Ad-Hoc Task Group Meeting Summary, May 23, 2005




                         MATERIALS FOR INFORMATION ONLY
VIII.I. Other Business

   1. External Meeting Summary

          •   Regional IPM Work Group Meeting Summary, May 11, 2005

          •   BASMAA/BACWA Media Relations Committee Meeting Summary, May 25, 2005

   2. Miscellaneous

          •    Letter to Leo O’Brian, Executive Director WaterKeepers Northern California, from
               Theodore Cobb, SWRCB, re: Petition of WaterKeepers Northern California (Waste
               Discharge Requirements Order No. 01-024 For Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff
               Pollution Prevention Program [NPDES No. CAS029718], San Francisco Region:
               Dismissal of Petition Held in Abeyance, June 8, 2005
          •    Letter to Bruce Wolfe, Executive Director RWQCB, from Donald Freitas, Chair
               BASMAA, re: Investigation and Development of Regional Policy / Guidance on
               Diversions of Wet Weather Urban Runoff to the Sanitary Sewer, June 9, 2005
                     Santa Clara Valley
                     Urban Runoff
                     Pollution Prevention Program
            Campbell • Cupertino • Los Altos • Los Altos Hills • Los Gatos • Milpitas • Monte Sereno • Mountain View • Palo Alto
                San Jose • Santa Clara • Saratoga • Sunnyvale • Santa Clara County • Santa Clara Valley Water District


                                                     AGENDA
                                      MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
                                      June 16, 2005, 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
                                   Sunnyvale Civic Center, West Conference Room
                                        456 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale

9:00        I.     Management Committee Meeting Call to Order/Introductions

           II.     Additions or Revisions to Agenda; Announcements

          III.     Approval of Minutes (May 19, 2005 meeting)

          IV.      Review of Action Items from Last Meeting

9:15       V.      Time Open for Public Comment on Any Subject Not On Agenda (2 minutes)

          VI.      Regional Water Board Staff Comments (10 minutes)

         VII.      Program Business

9:30             A. Program Manager’s Report -- Information Items

                   1. SCVWD Surface Water Quality Improvement Plan - information.

                   2. Other Items – information.

10:00            B. Program Management – Update and Action Items

                   1. New Program Fiscal and Contract Agent - status report.

10:05            C. Program Budget -- Update and Action Items
                   1. Budget Ad Hoc Task Group – report of May 31 meeting.

10:20            D. Urban Runoff Management Plan – Update and Action Items
                   1. Response to Water Board Comments on the FY 03-04 Annual Report – status
                      report.
                   2. FY 04-05 Annual Report Preparation – discussion of revised guidance.




F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Agn0605final.doc                                  1                                                             6/14/05
              E. Monitoring Activities- Update and Action Items
                 No report.
10:45         F. Outreach Activities - Update and Action Items

                 1. WEO AHTG – status report.
                 2. Watershed Education and Outreach Campaign – status report.
                 3. Workshops – status report.

11:00         G. Watershed Management Initiative Activities

                 1. WMI Core Group – report on June meeting.

11:05         H. Other Ad-Hoc Task Group Reports

                 1. C3 Provision Oversight AHTG – status report.
                 2. Trash AHTG – no report.
                 3. Watershed Analysis AHTG – no report.
                 4. AHTG Status Table – quarterly report (table in packet).
                      (To view updated table: go to www.scvurppp.org (click on “Management Committee”
                      and “status”)

11:25         I. Other Business

                 1. External Meeting Summary - key issues/action items from external meetings.
                 2. Miscellaneous

11:30 VIII. Adjourn




F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Agn0605final.doc                  2                                           6/14/05
                                                     MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
                                                                          MINUTES
                  Santa Clara Valley                                                                          May 19, 2005
                  Urban Runoff
                  Pollution Prevention Program

     Campbell • Cupertino • Los Altos • Los Altos Hills • Los Gatos • Milpitas • Monte Sereno • Mountain View • Palo Alto
         San Jose • Santa Clara • Saratoga • Sunnyvale • Santa Clara County • Santa Clara Valley Water District


I. MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE CALL TO ORDER/AN NOUNCEMENTS
In the absence of Dave Chesterman (Chair, SCVWD), Randolph Shipes (Vice Chair, San Jose)
called the Management Committee (MC) meeting to order at 9:15 a.m. Introductions were
made.

II. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA; ANNOUNCEMENTS
Jill Bicknell (Program staff) requested the following additions to the agenda:

Agenda Item VIII.A.2 - Briefing on City/County Managers Association Meeting
Agenda Item VIII.D.2 - Guidance on FY 04-05 Annual Report Preparation
Agenda Item VIII.D.3 - Report on Tetra Tech/Water Board MS4 Program Evaluation Outbrief

There were no announcements.

III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Joe Teresi (Palo Alto) moved to approve the minutes from the April 17, 2005 MC
meeting. Second: Lavenia Millar (Cupertino) Vote: Motion passed unanimously.

IV. REVIEW OF ACTION ITEMS FROM LAST MEETING
Completed Action Items:

•   Jill reported that Action Items 4-05-01, 4-05-02 and 3-05-1 are complete.

Status of Action Items in progress/remaining from previous meetings:

•   Jill reported that Action Item 4-05-03 will be done in July.

•   Action Item 3-05-3 will be discussed at the Budget AHTG meeting of May 31.

•   For Action Item 3-05-4, Jill reported that a Program information package will be prepared
    and provided to the MC by July for distribution to their governing bodies.

•   For Action Item 10-04-4 (Schedule a technical briefing of the District staff MDL analysis for
    the MC and the HMP Work Group), dates will be discussed with District staff.

•   For Action Item 5-04-1 (Coordinate with District staff to schedule a Surface Water Quality
    Improvement Plan presentation at a future MC meeting), Jill reported that Dave Chesterman
    (SCVWD) will make a short presentation at today’s MC meeting.



         699 Town & Country Village • Sunnyvale, CA 94086 • tel: (408) 720-8811 • fax: (408) 720-8812
             1410 Jackson Street • Oakland, CA 94612 • tel: (510) 832-2852 • fax: (510) 832-2856
                                                   1-800-794-2482
URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM                             2                                  May 19, 2005

•   For Action Item 11-04-6, Jill reported that the ACCWP has decided not to issue an RFP for
    development of the Bay Area Hydrology Model. They want to contract the firm that
    developed the Western Washington Hydrology Model. Program staff will discuss the
    situation with the BATG and get direction on how to proceed.

Upon Dave Chesterman’s (MC Chair, SCVWD) arrival, Randolph turned over the MC meeting to
him. Dave announced that the MC would proceed to the closed session (Item V). He turned
over the closed session to Bob Falk, the Program’s legal counsel.

V. CLOSED SESSION: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL--ANTICIPATED
LITIGATION. SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION (B)
OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9 (1 OR MORE CASES).
The closed session adjourned at 10:15 a.m. Bob Falk announced that in the closed session the
MC provided direction to Program staff and Program counsel with respect to undertaking
actions for avoiding litigation. Program staff and Program counsel will report back to the MC on
the progress of these actions. The MC will proceed with further steps based on the results of the
actions reported.

VI. TIME OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY SUBJECT NOT ON AGENDA
No members of the public were present and no comments were submitted.

                    FF
VII. WATER BOARD STA COMMENTS
No Water Board staff were present for this agenda item, and no comments were submitted.

VII. PROGRAM BUSINESS
    A. PROGRAM MANAGER’S REPORT
         1. SCVWD Surface Water Quality Improvement Plan

         Dave informed the MC that due to lack of time he will be providing only a brief summary
         of the District’s Surface Water Quality Improvement Plan. He recommended that a full
         presentation by Dave Drury (SCVWD) be scheduled for the MC at a later date.

         Dave said that the Surface Water Quality Improvement Plan addresses a number of
         processes to address priority pollutants in the watershed. These include source control,
         source removal and source allocation. The Plan evaluated 15 impaired water bodies in
         the Santa Clara Valley watershed and came up with a list of actions that need to be
         taken by the District to improve the water quality. A number of pilot studies are being
         conducted to address these pollutants. Some MC members asked Dave how the studies
         being carried out would impact the Program and/or the Co-permittee agencies. Dave
         informed them that source allocation data developed will be beneficial to the Program
         and Co-permittees in many ways, especially for the mercury TMDL implementation.

         Action: Reschedule a presentation by Dave Drury (SCVWD) on the Surface Water
         Quality Improvement Plan for the June MC meeting.

         2. City/County Managers Association Meeting

         Dave reported that he attended the last City/County Managers Association Meeting
         along with Adam Olivieri (Program Manager) and Lorrie Gervin (BATG Chair,
         Sunnyvale) and updated them on the Program’s cost allocation review process. He gave
         a summary of the presentation. He said that the Association members thought
         SCVURPPP was on track and appreciated being kept informed. Some Association

F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\MC 5-19-05 final.doc                                                     6/14/05
URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM                               3                                    May 19, 2005

         members were concerned that if the District reduced its funding to the Program, other
         cities may not be able to contribute enough to maintain the Program budget at the
         current level. Dave explained to the Association that while steps are being taken to
         reduce costs, all Program tasks are Permit mandated and the new Permit will probably
         bring in more requirements requiring additional expenditure.

    B. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
         1. New Program Fiscal and Contract Agent

         Lorrie reported that the City of Sunnyvale has prepared a report for presenting to its City
         Council at its June 7 meeting. The City’s finance department will be taking care of this.
         The MC asked Lorrie to let them know if she needs any support at the Council meeting.

    C. PROGRAM BUDGET
         No Items.

    D. URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PLAN
         1. Response to Water Board Comments on the FY 03-04 Annual Report

         Jill informed the MC that she has sent them an e-mail about compiling responses to
         Water Board comments on the New/Redevelopment Projects part of the FY 03-04
         Annual Report. She requested the MC to prepare their responses based on the
         directions provided in the e-mail and send them to her by May 27. The deadline for
         submitting responses to the Water Board is June 3.

         2. FY 04-05 Annual Report Preparation Guidance

         Jill informed the MC that the Annual Report Preparation Guidance was sent to them on
         Monday. The Annual Report format will be the same as last year’s. There may be some
         changes in the C.3. reporting format and these will be discussed at the C.3. Reporting
         Discussion meeting today.

         Jill said that in recent years, the MC meeting has been postponed by a week in August
         to provide adequate time for MC members to review and approve the Annual Report.
         The proposed August MC meeting date this year is August 26. The MC agreed to this.

         3. Report on Tetra Tech/Water Board MS4 Program Evaluation Outbrief Meeting
         Summary

         Jill informed the MC that the Tetra Tech outbrief meeting was held on April 28, 2005.
         Staff from the Cities of Milpitas, Santa Clara and Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, Tetra
         Tech, Water Board and SCVURPPP attended this meeting. Tetra Tech auditors noted
         that Santa Clara County has made improvements in every area that was found to be
         deficient in the December 2003 evaluation. The auditors commented on the Cities’
         inspections procedures and noted that although inspectors are knowledgeable and
         performing adequate inspections, procedures need to be better documented. They
         recommended that standard checklists should be used during inspections for
         consistency and training of new staff. Tetra Tech will prepare draft reports for Sue Ma’s
         (WB staff) review and she will provide them to the Co-permittees. Jill informed the MC
         that Co-permittees requested Tetra Tech staff to clearly separate recommendations from
         potential Permit violations.



F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\MC 5-19-05 final.doc                                                         6/14/05
URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM                              4                                  May 19, 2005

    E. MONITORING ACTIVITIES
    Chris Sommers (Program staff) updated the MC on the 3rd year of the Program’s 8-year
    monitoring plan. He said that two sampling events were conducted at 10 sites covering 7
    water bodies. Samples were analyzed for the following parameters:
    • Aquatic Life Use Indicators – This includes Chemical Water Quality Indicators
       (Conventionals, Nutrients, Aquatic Toxicity, Metals and OP Pesticides) and
       Bioassessment and Physical Habitat Quality Indicators (Benthic Macroinvertebrates,
       PHAB)
    • Recreations Uses Indicators – Conventionals and Indicator Bacteria (TC, FC,
       Enterococcus)

    Chris informed the MC that the preliminary evaluation indicates:
    • Potentially lowered Dissolved Oxygen and elevated temperature and pH at some sites
    • Metals do not appear to exceed CTR/Basin Plan Objectives
    • Acute toxicity only observed at one site
    • Chronic toxicity observed more frequently
    • Diazinon not detected at any site

    He said that these finding are comparable to the findings of the RMP and SWAMP
    monitoring studies. Data is still being analyzed and the final report will be included in the
    Program’s FY 04-05 Annual Report. Chris will present the monitoring information to the MC
    at its August meeting.

    Chris also informed the MC that the Program is planning to submit comments on the draft
    Guadalupe River Mercury TMDL before it is released to the public as Water Board staff is
    soliciting comments from stakeholders early in the process. The Program comments include,
    1) requesting clarification on Urban Runoff Waste Load Allocation (WLA) and 2)
    recommending that future revisions to the SF Bay TMDL should also be made to the
    Guadalupe River TMDL. The MC agreed with these comments. Chris said that a
    memorandum describing Program comments will be sent to them.

    F. OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
       1. WEO AHTG
       Vishakha Atre (Program staff) informed the MC that the WEO AHTG will be meeting in the
       first week of June. At present, the AHTG is reviewing the RFP for Watershed Watch
       consultant selection. The RFP will be sent to the Budget AHTG for review early next
       week. The Program’s Schools and Youth Outreach Work Group is planning to use
       available funds to purchase giveaways for the Wacky Watersheds teachers training
       workshop and to provide stipends to teachers attending the workshop. A proposal
       describing this will be brought to the MC for review at the next meeting.

       2. WEO Campaign
      Vishakha reported that all Campaign tasks for this year are complete. She informed the
      MC that the Program sponsored Community IPM workshop at the Spring in Guadalupe
      Gardens event was very well received. About 55 people attended it.

       3. Workshops
       Jill informed the MC that the MC packet contains the registration flyer for the C.3 BMP
       O&M workshop to be held on June 9.

       Jill reported on the New Development workshop organized by APWA. She said that the
       workshop included presentations by Keith Litchen, Larry Kolbe and Shin Roei Lee.
F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\MC 5-19-05 final.doc                                                      6/14/05
URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM                                5                                   May 19, 2005


         Dave informed the MC that he is involved in planning the NAFSMA conference to be held
         on September 7-8, 2005 in Sacramento. He would like to involve other SCVURPPP
         members in a panel discussion at the conference. The MC requested him to send them
         more information on this.

    G. WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE ACTIVITIES
          1. WMI Core Group

          Jill updated the MC on the following highlights from May 5 WMI meeting:

          •   All WMI subgroups are preparing charters to describe the purpose of the group and
              document the decision making process that will be used. The charters for the
              Indicator Work Group and the Stewardship Planning Advisory Work Group were
              approved at the meeting.
          •   The various Work Groups are also working on additions/revisions to the Work Plan.
          •   Results of the WAMS Watershed Group Survey were discussed at the meeting. The
              WAMS Watershed Group recently sent a questionnaire to 28 watershed interest
              groups and 12 responses were received. Key issues were lack of funding, lack of
              volunteers and lack of information sharing among groups and with WMI.
              Recommended actions for the WMI are, 1) host a forum to share information and
              foster joint efforts and 2) set up an email list/website to distribute information and
              provide contacts.

    H. OTHER AD -HOC TASK GROUP REPORTS
          1. C.3. Provision Oversight AHTG
          Jill updated the MC that the next C3PO AHTG is on May 23, 2005. The AHTG will
          discuss the C.3. reporting format with Sue Ma at this meeting. The approach to be taken
          will be discussed at the meeting today afternoon.

          Jill informed the MC that their copies of the HMP report are available on the back table.

          2. Trash AHTG
          No Items.

          3. Watershed Analysis AHTG
          No items.

          4. AHTG Status Table
          No items.

    I.    OTHER BUSINESS
          1. External Meeting Summaries
          Jill informed the MC that the handout packet includes a letter to Owners and Managers
          of Food Preparation Facilities. This letter is included in the Program’s restaurant
          outreach packet and handed out by County Department of Environmental Health (DEH)
          inspectors to new or remodeled food facilities during routine inspections. The letter has
          now been updated and signed by Jill and Richard Fuchs (Director, DEH Consumer
          Protection Division). Jill thanked Cheri Donnelley (WVCWP) for coordinating the letter
          update.

F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\MC 5-19-05 final.doc                                                         6/14/05
URBAN RUNOFF PROGRAM                              6                                   May 19, 2005


         2. Miscellaneous
         Joe Teresi (Palo Alto) informed the MC that the City of Palo Alto’s mail-in ballot measure
         for increasing storm drain utility fees passed.

         Cheri Donnelley informed the MC that the WVCWP is setting up a Fats, Oils and Grease
         control program with DEH. She asked whether it is possible for stormwater inspectors to
         inspect grease traps and look up maintenance records. Melody Tovar (San Jose)
         informed her that San Jose stormwater inspectors are doing it now.


VII ADJORN

Motion: Randolph Shipes (San Jose) moved to adjourn the MC meeting. Second: Lorrie Gervin
(Sunnyvale). Vote: Motion passed unanimously.

The MC meeting adjourned at 12:00 PM.




F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\MC 5-19-05 final.doc                                                       6/14/05
                             Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
                                     Management Committee Meeting Action Items
                                                 May 19, 2005 Meeting


  Action                                Description                                  Responsibility   Due Date     Status      Comments
5-05-1       Re-schedule and invite Dave Drury (SCVWD) to make a                      Program staff     June     In Progress
             presentation on the Surface Water Quality Improvement Plan at
             the June MC meeting.




                                       Action Items Remaining from Previous Meetings

  Action                                Description                                  Responsibility   Due Date     Status      Comments
4-05-3       Explore how to better inform building inspectors and officials          Program staff/     July     To Be Done
             about C.3. requirements and determine what type of guidance is           C3PO AHTG
             needed for this audience.
3-05-3       Work with the BATG (plus one new member) to develop the                     Adam           May        Done
             scope of work and RFP process for the cost-allocation review.

3-05-4       Prepare a Program information package and provide it to the MC           Adam/John         July     To Be Done
             for distribution to their governing bodies.

11-04-6      Work with ACCWP and STOPPP to develop RFP process for                   Program staff      May        Done
             consultant selection for the BAHM development project

10-04-4      Schedule a technical briefing of the MDL analysis for the MC and        Program staff      July     To Be Done
             the HMP Work Group.

5-04-1       Coordinate with District staff to schedule a Surface Water Quality      Jill / SCVWD       May        Done
             Improvement Plan presentation at a future MC meeting.




F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Action Items 5-19-05 final.doc                      Page 1 of 1                                                   6/14/05
Santa Clara
Valley Urban                                                   Date/Time: May 31, 2005, 9:00 am to Noon

Runoff Pollution                                               Place: City of San Jose ESD, Coyote Room
Prevention Program                                             Who Attended: Randolph Shipes, Melody Tovar
                                                           (San Jose); Lorrie Gervin (BATG – Chair Sunnyvale),
                                                           Joe Teresi (Palo Alto), Dave Chesterman and Roger
Budget Ad Hoc Task Group                                   Narsim (SCVWD), Cheri Donnelly (West Valley), Rick
(BATG) Meeting Summary –                                   Mauck (Santa Clara), and Adam Olivieri, Jill Bicknell
Mid-Year Budget Review                                     (Program staff)



RFP for Review of MOA Cost Sharing

The BATG reviewed the May 26, 2005 draft Cost Allocation Request for Proposal (RFP) previously
distributed to the BATG by the Program staff. The BATG provided specific comments and edits and directed
the Program Manager to: 1) provide a second draft to the BATG for final review and approval to be
completed via e-mail by June 2, 2005, and 2) distribute the BATG approved draft to the MC for final review
and approval to be completed by June 8, 2005.

Mid-Year Review of FY 04-05 Budget

The BATG reviewed the FY 04-05 budget status report covering the period July 2004 through April 2005.
The Program Manager indicated that all was going as expected except for legal expenses. Due to the Water
Board (WB) distributing two unexpected tentative orders (the first in December 2004 and another in May
2005) along with the efforts associated with the regional permit, additional resources will be needed to cover
legal expenses. The Program Manager indicated that he would come back in July to the BATG with a
recommendation on where in the budget to shift dollars to cover the unforeseen expenses. The Program
Manager indicated that the available FY 04-05 funds should be able to cover all invoices anticipated to be
received for FY 04-05 work which generally are not all submitted until September.

The BATG approved the mid-year review and briefly discussed the timing for closing out the SCVWD trust
account. A mid-July closure is anticipated with a transfer of remaining FY 04-05 resources to the new trust
account by the end of July 2005.

Use of Schools Outreach Funds

The BATG reviewed the May 9, 2005 memo from Mary Morse (the WEO AHTG Chair) and Vishakha Atre
(Program staff) regarding the use of previous fiscal year PI/P funds to fund FY 04-05 school outreach. The
memo recommended that the funds ($10,000) be used for supplies for teacher training workshops and
stipends for teacher projects, which will be distributed via the Program’s account with the Rose Foundation.

Motion: Rick Mauck (Santa Clara) moved that the previous fiscal year PI/P funds of $10,000 be used for
school outreach as proposed in the May 9, 2005 memo. Second: Randy Shipes (San Jose). Vote: Motion
passed unanimously.

Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) Project

The BATG reviewed and discussed the May 16, 2005 memo prepared by Arleen Feng (ACCWP). The memo
provided an up-to-date summary of the selection process used by the ACCWP for selection of the BAHM
consultant along with a discussion of the scope, deliverables, time frame, and various shares to be contributed

C:\progra~1\qualcomm\eudora\attach\BATG 5-31-05 Mtg Summary1.doc                                                   1
by three stormwater programs (San Mateo, Alameda, and Santa Clara). The Program staff indicated that
originally the BATG/MC requested that a RFP process be used to select the consultant because of a perceived
conflict since the assistant program manager’s husband works for one of the consulting firms working for the
Alameda program. However, the consulting firm split-up into two separate firms and the firm doing the work
for the Alameda program does not employ the assistant program manager’s husband. The BATG was satisfied
that the perceived conflict had been addressed.

Motion: Rick Mauck (Santa Clara) moved that Program staff be directed to proceed with arrangements to
work with the Alameda and San Mateo programs to conduct the BAHM work, including the contribution of
$30,000 to the first phase of the project, as currently budgeted. Second: Joe Teresi (Palo Alto). Vote:
Motion passed unanimously.

Watershed Watch Campaign RFP

The BATG reviewed the draft RFP that was approved by the WEO AHTG and had the following suggestions
for changes to its content:
         1) Potential consultants should have some idea of the available budget for the campaign, such as the
            range of past budgets;
         2) A reference to Latino audiences should be reworded;
         3) The RFP should stress that we need a flexible, scalable plan due to budget and regulatory
            uncertainties;
         4) The outreach plan should take into consideration the outreach activities of the Co-permittees.

Motion: Rick Mauck (Santa Clara) moved approval of the RFP with the changes discussed. Second: Lorrie
Gervin (Sunnyvale). Vote: Motion passed unanimously.

RWQCB Regional Permit

The BATG briefly discussed the status of the regional permit. The Program Manager indicated that late
summer next year was when he expected the regional permit to come before the WB for consideration. He
also noted that BASMAA was trying to set up a meeting with the WB Executive Officer (EO) to discuss the
priorities for developing the permit and to discuss how best to work with the two WB members assigned to
follow stormwater issues for the WB.


Status of Tentative Order

The BATG briefly discussed the status of the TO. The Program Manager noted that a summary matrix was
being prepared along with a redline/strike out version of the TO for discussion with the WB EO. He noted
that he was working on setting up a meeting with the EO to discuss MC concerns and that he anticipated the
meeting to occur probably on June 7. The BATG briefly discussed who should attend and agreed that the
City of Palo Alto, San Jose, Sunnyvale and the District along with the Program staff should attend on behalf
of the MC. The Program Manager noted that since the EO will be bringing the TO to the July WB meeting,
the time in which to negotiate, review and approve the content of the TO will be short and will be done very
rapidly, not allowing for a lot of MC review. He noted he may have to work with a few Executive Committee
members to get the work done. He is hoping to brief the MC at their June meeting on the overall status of the
negotiations.




C:\progra~1\qualcomm\eudora\attach\BATG 5-31-05 Mtg Summary1.doc   2
            Santa Clara Valley
            Urban Runoff
            Pollution Prevention Program
   Campbell • Cupertino • Los Altos • Los Altos Hills • Los Gatos • Milpitas • Monte Sereno • Mountain View • Palo Alto
      San Jose • Santa Clara • Saratoga • Sunnyvale • Santa Clara County • Santa Clara Valley Water District


June 3, 2005



Ms. Shin-Roei Lee
Division Chief
South Bay Watershed Management Division
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
Oakland, CA 94612

Subject: Response to Regional Board Staff Comments on SCVURPPP’s FY 03-04 Annual
         Report

Dear Ms. Lee:

Thank you for your April 8, 2005 letter with Regional Board staff comments on the New and
Redevelopment Section of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
(SCVURPPP) FY 03-04 Annual Report. This letter transmits our responses to your comments.
The Program’s responses to your general comments are provided in the body of this letter, and
the Co-permittees’ responses to specific comments (those that required a response) are
contained in Attachment A. Attachment B contains supplemental information related to
Cupertino's response in Attachment A. Some of the Co-permittee responses were due by June 3,
and others did not need to be addressed until the next annual report; however, all are referenced
here for completeness.
We appreciated the opportunity to meet with Sue Ma of your staff at our C.3. Provision Oversight
Ad Hoc Task Group (C3PO AHTG) on May 23 to discuss the comments on the C.3.n. reporting
requirements. Our responses in this letter reflect our understanding of the agreement reached at
that meeting.
General Comments on Provision C.3.n. Reporting

We understand that Board staff are concerned that the tables provided by Co-permittees in their
annual reports with information on development projects were not consistent in the amount of
the information and the level of detail provided in the tables. Board staff provided “templates”
for C.3.n. reporting and requested that Co-permittees use the templates in the FY 04-05 Annual
Report.

At the C3PO May 23 meeting, we discussed with Sue that the Program developed a model
reporting form as part of the Planning Procedures Performance Standard, which was reviewed
and previously approved by Board staff, that the Co-permittees have been using. The Program’s

         699 Town & Country Village • Sunnyvale, CA 94086 • tel: (408) 720-8811 • fax: (408) 720-8812
             1410 Jackson Street • Oakland, CA 94612 • tel: (510) 832-2852 • fax: (510) 832-2856
                                                   1-800-794-2482
Ms. Shin-Roei Lee
June 3, 2005
Page 2


form (actually three tables) contains fields for all of the information required to be reported by
Provision C.3.n. The Board staff’s template contains the same information, combined on one
legal size form in small font, along with other desired but not required information, such as
project street address, developer name, project phase, and project watershed.

As discussed at the meeting, the Co-permittees thought it was appropriate to continue using the
Program’s previously approved form for the following reasons:

    a) Co-permittee staff have been collecting the required data for the Program’s form
       throughout the current year, and it would require additional resources for some of them
       to switch to a different format and provide extra information at this late date in the fiscal
       year.
    b) Co-permittees would rather not change to a different format this fiscal year, and then
       have to potentially change again after the Regional Permit is adopted.
    c) The Program and Co-permittees would like the opportunity to discuss any new templates
       with other Bay area stormwater program representatives as part of development of the
       Regional Permit.

It was agreed at the meeting that the Co-permittees would continue to use the existing Program
reporting form, with the following conditions:

    a) All Co-permittees will provide all available information for applicable categories in the
       Program reporting tables. Program staff will provide specific guidance by June 24, 2005
       to assist Co-permittees in making their reports more consistent for the FY 04-05 Annual
       Report.
    b) Co-permittees will report only projects that are approved in the given fiscal year. If Co-
       permittees would like to provide additional information about projects that are in the
       conceptual planning stages or are in the process of being approved, they may do so in a
       separate table that is clearly marked as to the project status.
    c) Co-permittees will list the deemed complete date and the approval date in the Project
       Status column (these dates may be approximate).
    d) Although not required by the permit, Co-permittees will look at the level of effort needed
       to include additional information about the project requested by Water Board staff, such
       as street address, developer name and watershed, and include that information if
       practical.

Co-permittee staff expressed their willingness to provide more detailed data on individual
projects of interest to Board staff in response to a specific request (for example, if Board staff
are going to be in the area and they are interested in visiting a construction site or seeing a
completed project). It was generally agreed that once a project entered the construction phase,
the Construction General Permit NOI database was the best source of information about project
location and status. In larger cities, Co-permittee planning department staff do not typically
know when grading or building permits have been issued to particular projects, as that is
handled by a different department, so it is difficult to track that information on the reporting
tables.




F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\Response to RB Comments on FY03-04 AR 6-3-05 final.doc
Ms. Shin-Roei Lee
June 3, 2005
Page 3


In the comment letter, Water Board staff requested a map be submitted with the Annual Report
showing the location of all Group 1 projects reported for that year. Although this is not required
by the permit, Program staff will investigate the level of effort required to produce such a map
and consider this for future annual reports.

At the May 23 meeting, we also began discussions about the potential format for reporting on
the Co-permittees’ operation and maintenance verification programs per Provision C.3.e. The
group assured Sue that this tracking system would be linked to the C.3.n. reporting
forms/databases so that all approved and constructed BMPs would appear on the list of BMPs
as part of a prioritized inspection program. We will propose a data collection and reporting
methodology in a separate memorandum and we look forward to continued discussions with
Water Board staff on this issue.

Comments on Pesticide Reduction Measure Reporting (C.3.n.iii.)

Provision C.3.n.iii. requires each Annual Report to contain “a summary of the types of pesticide
reduction measures required for those new development and significant redevelopment projects
to be addressed under Provision C.3.c., and the percentage of such new development and
significant redevelopment projects for which pesticide reduction measures were required.” As
part of the Program’s approved Planning Procedures Performance Standard and the C.3.
Handbook provided to Board staff in May 2004, the Program provides guidance on three
mechanisms for addressing pesticide reduction measures:

             1) Conditions of approval for source control measures (Performance Standard
                Attachment 4, Section D);
             2) Conditions of approval for projects that include landscape plans (C.3. Handbook,
                Attachment III-1, p. 7); and
             3) Project owner education (Landscape Maintenance Techniques for Pest
                Reduction, C.3. Handbook, Attachment III-5, and IPM Fact Sheets that can be
                attached to building permits or certificates of occupancy, etc.).

As Water Board staff noted, the Program and Co-permittees have interpreted the phrase, “types
of pesticide reduction measures” to mean one or more of these three mechanisms. Since all
Co-permittees are using these conditions and educational materials, we believe that providing
information on which of these mechanisms was used meets the permit requirement and that it is
not necessary, given the amount of extra work involved, to list the specific measures required.
Since most pesticide reduction measures are non-structural and are more related to the site
maintenance, ongoing pesticide reduction at development projects is best addressed through
public outreach conducted in other elements of the stormwater program.

Comments on Report Format

Water Board staff requested that Co-permittees sequentially number the pages of their reports,
include a list of acronyms, and provide electronic copies of their reports. The Program has
provided guidance to Co-permittees to make these changes in their FY 04-05 annual reports. In
addition, we are happy to provide additional copies of the Program and Co-permittee annual
reports to Board staff. The Program’s website (www.scvurppp.org) also contains electronic
copies of most Program technical reports, work plans, and annual reports, and provides a



F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\Response to RB Comments on FY03-04 AR 6-3-05 final.doc
Ms. Shin-Roei Lee
June 3, 2005
Page 4


mechanism to request copies of additional reports. In the future, we hope you will feel free to
contact Program staff directly whenever you need additional copies of any Program documents.


Please contact me if you have additional comments or questions about the FY 03-04 Annual
Report.

Very truly yours,




Jill C. Bicknell, P.E., EOA, Inc.
SCVURPPP Assistant Program Manager

Attachments

cc:     Mr. David Chesterman, SCVURPPP Management Committee Chair
        SCVURPPP Management Committee




F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\Response to RB Comments on FY03-04 AR 6-3-05 final.doc
                 ATTACHMENT A – Responses to Comments on Co-permittees’ FY 03-04 Annual Reports


Cupertino            Compliance          Comments                                                           Response
                     Status
New                  compliance          •   Cupertino states that the revised Planning                     •   This information will be included in the 04-05
Development                                  Procedures PS SOPs contain detailed information                    Annual Report.
                                             on the City’s BMP and O&M inspection
                                             program, which we assume contains a discussion
                                             of the organizational structure of Cupertino’s
                                             O&M verification program. However, this
                                             information must be included in the Annual
                                             Report itself. Please ensure that this information
                                             is included in next year’s Annual Report.
                                                                                                            •   The typographical errors have been corrected and
                                         •   There appears to be some typographical errors on
                                                                                                                the annual report section is resubmitted as
                                             dates reported on page 4 of 10. Please check and
                                                                                                                Attachment B.
                                             correct, if appropriate, the following: “In 11/04,
                                             the City developed two agreements . . .” and “All
                                             projects listed on the Reporting Form for
                                             Significant Development were ‘deemed
                                             complete’ prior to 10/15/04.”
Los Altos            Compliance          Comments
                     Status
New                  compliance          •   Page 16 states that “at the end of FY 03/04 Los                •   The city of Los Altos was reviewing two
Development                                  Altos was reviewing preliminary conceptual                         preliminary projects that were under
                                             design on two potential Group 1 Projects. Please                   considerations by developers. The city allows
                                             clarify whether these projects had submitted                       developer to do this prior to submitting formal
                                             applications to the Planning Department at the                     planning applications. This is why they were not
                                             end of FY03-04. If so, please include these two                    included on the list. It is also worth noting that
                                             projects in the table on page 34.                                  during this preliminary stage, the city informs the
                                                                                                                developer of the C3 requirements that are
                                                                                                                delineated in our municipal codes. During FY
                                                                                                                04-05 one of these projects were submitted (prior
                                                                                                                to April 15, 2005), but it was determined during
                                                                                                                the application review that this project had less
                                                                                                                than one acre of new plus replaced impermeable
F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\Attachment A- Response to FY 03-04 Annual Report Comments with co-permittees responses.doc                                       A-1
                                                                                                          surface and therefore not a Group 1. The other
                                                                                                          project application has not yet been submitted.
                                       •   Page 20 states that Los Altos “had one project of          •   The narrative on page 20 should have said, “has
                                           1 acre approved.” However, the table on page 34                one project that created greater than one acre of
                                           lists one project, Whole Food Store, as creating               new plus replacement impermeable surface.”
                                           81,801 ft2 (~1.9 acres) on a 2.44-acre site. If                This project was the Whole Foods Store that was
                                           there is an additional project of 1 acre, please               listed on page 34. Sorry about the confusion.
                                           provide information for it on page 34. If not,
                                           please correct the typographical error on one of
                                           these pages.
Los Altos Hills Compliance             Comments
                Status
New             conditional            •   In response to our comments on last year’s                 •   Currently the Town of Los Altos Hills utilizes
Development     compliance                 Annual Report (FY02-03), Los Altos Hills                       Municipal Code and Design Guideline to
                                           submitted a discussion of its approval process for             minimize erosion and higher rates of runoff for
                                           all new and redevelopment projects. Los Altos                  site development and public works projects. The
                                           Hills also stated it is “working on adopting an                Municipal Code and Design Guideline frame the
                                           ordinance to provide legal authority to implement              legal authority for handling of storm water issues.
                                           C.3. requirements.” This year’s Annual Report                  The new and redevelopment projects in the Town
                                           provides no update on the status of this task. We              of Los Altos Hills are all single family residence.
                                           are concerned that Los Altos Hills lacks the legal             Construction of one single-family home is
                                           authority to implement Provision C.3. as required              exempted from Provision C.3. The Town of Los
                                           by the Permit. Although Los Altos Hills may not                Altos Hills does not have Group 1 and Group 2
                                           have Group 1 projects, it most certainly will have             projects.
                                           Group 2 projects; therefore proper legal authority
                                           is mandatory. Within 8 weeks of the date of                    Town’ new Director of Public Works, Henry
                                           this correspondence, please submit to the                      Louie, came on board on May 2, 2005. We have
                                           Executive Officer a status report on Los Altos                 drafted an ordinance to provide legal authority to
                                           Hills’s legal authority (or lack thereof) to                   implement C.3. requirements. Henry will work
                                           implement Provision C.3. requirements.                         with the City Council to adopt the ordinance.

                                       •   Los Altos Hill states that because of its rural            •          The Town of Los Altos Hills has developed the
                                           setting, treatment BMPs will consist of site                          Town’s verification program for the projects
                                           design measures in landscaping only. This may                         requiring stormwater control measures. The staff
                                           be the case but Provision C.3.e. explicitly                           in Public Works and Planning Departments has
                                           requires that Los Altos Hills establish and                           been implementing the program. They conduct
                                           implement an operation and maintenance                                pre-final and final inspections on every site
                                                                                                                 development projects to ensure that drainage,
F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\Attachment A- Response to FY 03-04 Annual Report Comments with co-permittees responses.doc                                          A-2
                                             verification program for all treatment BMPs                        erosion control and landscaping work comply
                                             installed for Group 1 and Group 2 projects. Los                    with the stormwater control measures
                                             Altos Hills must develop its verification program
                                             and report on it in next year’s Annual Report. All
                                             the information required in Provision C.3.e. must
                                             be included in this discussion.
Milpitas             Compliance          Comments
                     Status
New                  conditional         •   Milpitas is currently developing an O&M                        •   Comment is noted. We have completed the
Development          compliance              Verification Program database that will include                    programming for the database system and have
                                             property address, contact person, responsible                      begun staff training on the use of the system.
                                             party, installed BMPs, O&M requirements, post-
                                             construction, inspection results, and other
                                             pertinent information on permanent C.3 treatment
                                             BMPs. We concur with this comprehensive
                                             approach and will be including these items in the
                                             O&M reporting template that we will develop in
                                             the near future.
                                         •   The Reporting Form for Significant Development                 •   The residential portion of the Elmwood Project
                                             Projects does not include the residential portion                  was deemed completed prior to the
                                             of the Elmwood Project. Please include details of                  implementation date of the C.3 Group 1 and was
                                             the residential portion in Table 1 of next year’s                  therefore not included in the table. Commercial
                                             Annual Report. Also, please include any other                      portion of the Elmwood Project has not been
                                             portions/phases of the Elmwood Project, if                         submitted to the City yet. We will include
                                             applicable (following our guidelines for inclusion                 commercial portion of this project when/if
                                             in Table 1).                                                       applicable in our future reports.
                                         •   The “Storm Water Control Measures Included in                  •   We appreciate the observation. We had included
                                             Project” column of the Reporting Form for                          both construction and post-construction BMP
                                             Significant Development Projects should list                       information in the table. In future tables, we will
                                             post-construction BMPs, not construction BMPs.                     limit the information to post-construction C.3
                                             We made this same comment on last year’s                           BMPs.
                                             Annual Report. Please ensure that post-
                                             construction BMPs are reported in Table 1
                                             next year. The public projects listed on
                                             Milpitas’s Reporting Form have no post-
                                             construction BMPs and it is unclear when the

F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\Attachment A- Response to FY 03-04 Annual Report Comments with co-permittees responses.doc                                        A-3
                                             applications for these projects were submitted and
                                             when they were approved. Even though two of
                                             these projects have been completed, please
                                             include all three public projects in next year’s
                                             Annual Report in Table 1.
Mountain             Compliance          Comments
View                 Status
New                  conditional         •   Page 23 states that Mountain View developed an                 •   The City of Mountain View uses its Impervious
Development          compliance              impervious surface data sheet to gather                            Surface Data sheet to determine if the C.3
                                             preliminary information about the types of                         requirements apply to incoming projects.
                                             projects proposed. However, Mountain View                          Submittal of the Impervious Surface Data sheets
                                             states that the data forms collected were                          is required as Development Review condition,
                                             incomplete and inconsistent. It is unclear to us if                and the data sheet is submitted with the project
                                             these data forms were requested from a project                     building plans.
                                             prior to application submittal or if the forms were            •   The comment on page 23 of the Annual Report
                                             part of the required application package.                          pertained to the City’s data collection effort that
                                             Mountain View does not provide any discussion                      was conducted during April 2002 through August
                                             of how it will remedy this problem which affects                   2003 for the SCVURPPP determination of an
                                             the proper classification of projects as Group 1 or                alternative group 2 definition. This early data
                                             2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this                              collection effort resulted in incomplete and
                                             correspondence, please submit to the                               inconsistent data. The City is now requiring
                                             Executive Officer clarification on when                            completed Impervious Surface Data forms for all
                                             projects must submit the data forms and what                       potential C.3 regulated projects.
                                             changes in procedure Mountain View will
                                             make to ensure that projects submit accurate
                                             and complete impervious surface data.
San Jose             Compliance          Comments
                     Status
New                  conditional         •   We appreciate San Jose’s inclusion of a                        •   Any mapping provided for the New and
Development          compliance              Development Activity Map (page 45); however,                       Redevelopment section will be included in the
                                             the map and scale is too small and we are unable                   electronic version of the Annual Report, and can
                                             to read the Freeway names and the Map Numbers                      thus be viewed or reproduced at the user’s
                                             to identify the locations corresponding to the                     discretion.
                                             project numbers. Please ensure that the map you
                                             include next year is in a larger scale.


F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\Attachment A- Response to FY 03-04 Annual Report Comments with co-permittees responses.doc                                       A-4
                                       •   On page 31, San Jose states that a summary of              •   Information will be included in the FY 04-05
                                           details of operation and maintenance verification              Report.
                                           program: organizational structure, evaluation,
                                           proposed improvements, inspections and follow-
                                           up, including criteria for setting priorities, was
                                           completed during the reporting period. However,
                                           no details on these elements have been included
                                           in the Annual Report as required by Provision
                                           C.3.e. Please ensure that the required
                                           information listed in Provision C.3.e. are
                                           included in next year’s Annual Report.
Santa Clara         Compliance         Comments
                    Status
New                 conditional        •   Santa Clara’s Table of Group 1 Projects lists the      •       This project was erroneously listed as exempt but
Development         compliance             Sobrato Development on 445 El Camino Real as                   has been reviewed and approved as a Group 1
                                           a transit-oriented infill site creating 250,000 ft2 of         project. The project includes construction and
                                           new impervious surface. Even though it meets                   post-construction BMP’s in accordance with the
                                           the definition of a Group 1 project, it is not listed          program requirements. The project represents an
                                           as such. Within 8 weeks of the date of this                    approximately 10% net reduction in impervious
                                           correspondence, please submit to the                           surface on this transit-oriented development site
                                           Executive Officer clarification on whether this                and more than 50% reduction in the overall site
                                           facility is being regulated as a Group 1 project.              (combined with the adjoining Santa Clara
                                           If it is not, please explain the reasons it has                University baseball stadium as replacement of the
                                           been exempted.                                                 original site development). BMP measures
                                                                                                          include paved area runoff to landscaped swales.
Santa Clara         Compliance         Comments
County              Status
New                 conditional        •   In Attachment E, Santa Clara states that no C.3.    •                 The County should have received a finding of
Development         compliance             projects (Group 1 projects ) were received for FY                     Compliance, not Conditional Compliance. No
                                           03-04; therefore, the County did not develop a list                   C3. projects were submitted from the private
                                           of projects, their installed treatment BMPs,                          sector during the reporting period, so no private
                                           responsible operators, etc. However, Attachment                       project C3. reporting was required. More are
                                           D contains tables that list four public Group 1                       expected after 4/15/2005, when the threshold is
                                           projects under way in Santa Clara County. The                         reduced.
                                           C.3.e. requirement for compiling a list of                            The County submitted C3. information on public
                                           properties (public and private) and responsible                       projects as required. It was appropriate that the
                                           operators for all treatment BMPs applies to all                       information was contained in departmental
F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\Attachment A- Response to FY 03-04 Annual Report Comments with co-permittees responses.doc                                         A-5
                                             Group 1 projects under the jurisdiction of the                     chapters, since department heads were certifying
                                             County, which includes the four Group 1 projects.                  their submitted information. There is no permit
                                             Please ensure that the requirements of                             condition regarding this, nor was there a RWQCB
                                             Provision C.3.e are addressed and the                              staff request to place public and private C3.
                                             necessary information is included in next                          projects in the same chapter. This staff request
                                             year’s Annual Report.                                              will be observed for next fiscal year's annual
                                             Santa Clara’s public Group 1 projects are                          report.
                                             reported under the Department in charge of the
                                             project in Attachments D and E. In next year’s
                                             report, please list and discuss all Group 1 and
                                             2 projects in one Table 1 and one Table 2,
                                             respectively.
                                                                                                                Additional Comments:
                                                                                                            •   To avoid confusion with the City of Santa Clara,
                                                                                                                please refer to the County as "Santa Clara
                                                                                                                County" or the "County of Santa Clara" or the
                                                                                                                "County", rather than just "Santa Clara".
                                                                                                            •   The County was the first SCVURPPP jurisdiction
                                                                                                                to have an IPM ordinance, to ban certain
                                                                                                                pesticides, and to employ and IPM Coordinator.
                                                                                                                The County has a successful pesticide free
                                                                                                                demonstration project at Ed Levin Park. This has
                                                                                                                never received praise or mention in any annual
                                                                                                                report review.
                                                                                                            •   The County Dept. of Parks and Recreation has
                                                                                                                purchased a very significant amount of land for
                                                                                                                Parks and for Open Space, and acquires more
                                                                                                                nearly every year. The total is now over 44,000
                                                                                                                acres. Most of these areas are for low impact use
                                                                                                                or buffers arouond existing parks. These lands
                                                                                                                will never be developed for residential,
                                                                                                                commercial, or industrial uses. This contribution
                                                                                                                to south bay water quality has also not been
                                                                                                                recognized.




F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\Attachment A- Response to FY 03-04 Annual Report Comments with co-permittees responses.doc                                      A-6
Attachment B

Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
FY 2003-2004 Annual Report: New and Redevelopment Requirements
Revised 5/17/05
Cupertino
       Activity    Permit             FY03-04 Tasks                                       Status / Comments                     Due Date Responsible
                    Item                                                                                                         (mo/yr)    Party
                  Source
   C.3.b Development Project Approval Process -- Planning Procedures
Ordinance, Policy and   C.3.b.2   Develop new or modify existing review         The Water Course Protection ordinance             9/03   Public Works,
Procedural Revisions              policies, procedures, and/or conditions of    was significantly revised in Sept. ‘03 to                Planning, City
                                  approval to incorporate Group 1               incorporate C.3 provisions. All projects                 Attorney
                                  requirements (based on results of tasks       must use permanent BMPs. Group 1
                                  under C.3.c. through C.3.m.)                  project reqts are related to Numeric Sizing
                                                                                Criteria, BMP O&M and Stormwater
                                                                                Management Plans. A copy of the revised
                                                                                Muni. Code is given as Attachment ‘1’.

                                                                                The City’s Permanent BMP Selection
                                                                                Matrix was revised in April ’04 to align with
                                                                                the revised CA BMP Handbooks and in
                                                                                response to Regional Board comments on
                                                                                the City’s FY ’02-’03 Annual Report. A
                                                                                copy of the revised matrix is given in
                                                                                Attachment ‘2’, along with other
                                                                                stormwater guidance included in the
                                                                                Development Permit Application packet
                                                                                (packet contents were updated in 6/04).

                                                                                 Over the course of several months in FY
                                                                                 ’03-’04, the City’s Planning Procedures
                                                                                 Perf. Stand. was revised to address C.3
                                                                                 requirements.
Staff Training          C.3.b.3   Continue to train Cupertino staff in planning, Training sessions for Planning staff were        6/04   Public Works –
                                  building, and engineering departments on held on 7/1/03 (Site Design Policies),                        Environmental
                                  the C.3. provisions as they are refined.       10/1/03 (C.3 Provisions, revised Muni                   Division
                                                                                 Code) and 3/23/04 (CEQA water qual.
                                                                                 assessments, pesticide control BMPs,
                                                                                 revised Planning Procedures PS, staff
                                                                                 feedback). Public Works staff also
                                                                                 attended the C.3 training on 10/1/03.                                         Deleted: 10
                                                                                                                                                               Deleted: 1
                                                                       Page 1 of 10                                                                   8/1/04
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
FY 2003-2004 Annual Report: New and Redevelopment Requirements
Revised 5/17/05
Cupertino

      Activity      Permit              FY03-04 Tasks                                  Status / Comments                  Due Date Responsible
                     Item                                                                                                  (mo/yr)    Party
                    Source
   C.3.c. Requirements for Group 1 and Group 2 Projects
Guidance Manual       C.3.c.4   Review Guidance Manual developed by         The revised SCVURPPP C.3 Guidance               9/03     Public Works
                                Program and, if needed, customize for       Manual was reviewed and found to be                      Environmental
                                Group 1 projects likely in Cupertino.       general enough to be used in Cupertino as                Division
                                                                            is.

                                                                             In conjunction with the adoption of the
                                                                             City’s revised Watershed Protection and
                                                                             Stormwater Pollution Prevention
                                                                             Ordinance, in 10/03, the Environmental
                                                                             Division developed a hand-out to assist
                                                                             Group 1 project proponents with C.3
                                                                             requirements. A copy of the Cupertino
                                                                             Stormwater Quality Guidelines for
                                                                             Development Projects is given in
                                                                             Attachment ‘3’.
Group 2 Alternative   C.3.c.8   Conduct analysis of alternative project size In spring ’04, Cupertino supplied             4/15/04   Public Works
Project Size                    and prepare proposal for submittal to        SCVURPPP with raw impervious surface                    Environmental
                                Regional Board.                              data collected between approx. 4/02 and                 Division
                                                                             10/03 and an analysis of this data.
Guidance Manual and   C.3.c.9   Update Guidance Manual and Performance Cupertino’s engineering consultant                  [10/04]   Public Works
Performance                     Standard for Group 2 projects as needed. reviewed drafts of the revised C.3 Manual                   Environmental
Standard Update                                                              and provided comments to SCVURPPP in                    Division
                                                                             spring ’04. In 8/04, the revised Planning
                                                                             Procedures PS was completed. Minor
                                                                             modification of the PS will occur in early
                                                                             ’05 to meet the 4/15/05 Group 2
                                                                             implementation date.




                                                                                                                                                         Deleted: 05/17/05
                                                                                                                                                         Deleted: 08/10/04
                                                                    Page 2 of 10                                                                8/1/04
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
FY 2003-2004 Annual Report: New and Redevelopment Requirements
Revised 5/17/05
Cupertino
      Activity      Permit             FY03-04 Tasks                                  Status / Comments                 Due Date Responsible
                     Item                                                                                                (mo/yr)    Party
                    Source
   C.3.e Operation and Maintenance of Treatment BMPs
Data Form and Staff   C.3.e.1   Log information about treatment BMPs         In FY ’03-’04, no Group 1 projects were      6/04   Public Works
Training                        installed at approved Group 1 projects and   processed by the City. The City has                 Environmental
                                maintain a list or database of properties,   begun working with SCVURPPP staff to                Division
                                treatment BMPs, and responsible              develop an Access database for tracking
                                operators.                                   Group 1/2 projects, the private BMPs and
                                                                             inspection of these BMPs.




                                                                                                                                                      Deleted: 05/17/05
                                                                                                                                                      Deleted: 08/10/04
                                                                   Page 3 of 10                                                              8/1/04
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
FY 2003-2004 Annual Report: New and Redevelopment Requirements
Revised 5/17/05
Cupertino

       Activity     Permit                  FY03-04 Tasks                             Status / Comments                   Due Date Responsible
                     Item                                                                                                  (mo/yr)    Party
                    Source
BMP O&M Agreement   C.3.e.2    Adapt model O&M agreement language to       In 11/03, the City developed two agree-           7/03    Public Works,           Deleted: 4
Mechanism                      meet agency-specific needs and              ment templates related to Group 1                         Planning, City
                               requirements and incorporate into the       projects. One is for O&M of permanent                     Attorney
                               project review and approval process.        private BMPs and the other is an ease-
                                                                           ment agreement allowing City inspection
                                                                           access. A copy of each of these agree-
                                                                           ments is included in Attachment ‘4’.
BMP Inspection      C.3.e.5    Develop local programs for inspection of a Initially, the City intends to inspect all       7/15/03   Public Works
Program                        subset of prioritized treatment BMPs to     Group 1 projects each year. The revised                   Engineering
                               verify that proper O&M is being performed Planning Procedures PS (8/04) contains
                               by the responsible party (Program to assist SOPs for private BMP inspection and
                               in defining which BMPs are priority for     enforcement, including inspection forms
                               inspection.)                                and enforcement letters.
Reporting           C.3.e.6    Report on the Co-permittee’s treatment      See the revised Planning Procedures PS          9/15/03   Public Works
                               BMPs O&M verification program in each       SOPs for detailed information on the City’s     AR and    Environmental
                               annual report, including organizational     BMP O&M inspection program. To date,            ongoing   and Engineering
                               structure, evaluation of effectiveness, and no Group 1 projects have been processed                   Divisions
                               planned improvement to the program.         by the City and therefore there are no sites
                               Include a list or summary of treatment      to inspect. All projects listed on the
                               BMPs inspected during the year, inspection Reporting Form for Significant
                               results, and any required follow-up and     Development were “deemed complete”
                               correction.                                 prior to 10/15/03.                                                                Deleted: 4
    C.3.f Hydromodification Management Plan
Staff training       C.3.f.3   Upon adoption by the Regional Board,         PW Environmental Division staff and the          10/03   Public Works and
                               begin implementation of HMP as part of       City' engineering consultant have tracked        (early  Planning
                               requirements for Group 1 projects that may   the development of the HMP, reviewed          implement)
                               cause increased erosion or other related     draft versions of the Plan and attended          ; TBD
                               impacts. Before adoption, encourage early    meetings on the progress of this work.          pending
                               implementation of likely elements of the     Once the City determines the applicability         RB
                               HMP where possible.                          of the HMP to its sub-watersheds and the       approval
                                                                            final HMP is completed, City staff will
                                                                            receive training on the requirements.

                                                                                                                                                             Deleted: 05/17/05
                                                                                                                                                             Deleted: 08/10/04
                                                                   Page 4 of 10                                                                     8/1/04
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
FY 2003-2004 Annual Report: New and Redevelopment Requirements
Revised 5/17/05
Cupertino

       Activity     Permit            FY03-04 Tasks                                      Status / Comments                   Due Date Responsible
                     Item                                                                                                     (mo/yr)    Party
                    Source
   C.3.g Waiver and Compensatory Mitigation Program
Model Waiver           C.3.g.1   Develop a model waiver program.               See the SCVURPP FY ’03-’04 Annual             Final 12/03 Public Works
Program                                                                        Report for a discussion of the feasibility of             Environmental
                                                                               a model waiver program.                                   and Engineering
                                                                                                                                         Divisions
Local Waiver Program   C.3.g.2   Develop local waiver program, perform         The City has determined that it is not           4/04     Public Works,
                                 legal review, and incorporate waiver          currently feasible to implement a local                   Planning and City
                                 provisions in project review process. (If     waiver program.                                           Attorney
                                 model program has not been adopted by
                                 Regional Board, develop interim waiver
                                 program per C.3.g.vi.)
Staff training and     C.3.g.3   Begin tracking information for reporting on   See the response to item C.3.g.2, above.      6/04 (as   Public Works,
reporting                        waivers granted, including project name,                                                    needed)    Planning and City
                                 location, type, percent impervious surface,                                                            Attorney
                                 reasons for and terms of waiver, and the
                                 alternative benefit project and completion
                                 date.
   C.3.j Site Design Measures Guidance and Standards Development
Policy and standards   C.3.j.2   Review existing local design standards and    In 9/04, the City submitted a report to the    9/15/03   Public Works
review                           guidance, and compare them to the list of     Regional Board responding to                     AR      Environmental
                                 areas to address in provision C.3.j. and      recommendations in the development                       Division
                                 other references such as “Start at the        policies comparison worksheet.
                                 Source” and the “Development Policies
                                 Comparison” work sheet. Prepare and
                                 submit an analysis of local standards,
                                 identified opportunities for revision, and
                                 proposed revisions.                                                                          9/15/03




                                                                                                                                                              Deleted: 05/17/05
                                                                                                                                                              Deleted: 08/10/04
                                                                     Page 5 of 10                                                                    8/1/04
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
FY 2003-2004 Annual Report: New and Redevelopment Requirements
Revised 5/17/05
Cupertino

      Activity        Permit                 FY03-04 Tasks                               Status / Comments                   Due Date     Responsible
                       Item                                                                                                   (mo/yr)        Party
                      Source
Standards Revisions   C.3.j.4   Incorporate any revised standards and          In Aug., Oct. and Dec. ’03, the City’s        [9/15/04] Public Works
                                guidance into local project approval           engineering consultant attended                         Environmental
                                process and “fully implement” the revised      SCVURPPP/WMI roundtable discussions                     Division and
                                standards and guidance.                        regarding overcoming hurdles to revising                Planning Division
                                                                               site design guidelines. Information from
                                                                               these sessions was relayed to the City’s
                                                                               Env. Programs Manager and the planner
                                                                               working on revising the Parking and
                                                                               Zoning Ordinances.

                                                                               The implementation status of policies and
                                                                               standards revised in FY ’03-’04 and any
                                                                               other recommendations is given in
                                                                               Attachment ‘5’.
   C.3.k Source Control Measures
Ordinance Revision    C.3.k.    Enhance source control requirements for        See the first entry for C.3.b.2, above. The    Fall ‘03   Public Works
                                new and redevelopment projects.                revised Cupertino Muni. code includes a                   Environmental
                                                                               new section on source control BMPs,                       Division
                                                                               based on the SCVURPPP list of model
                                                                               sources control BMPs.
Reporting             C.3.k.3   Implement source control measures              Source control BMPs are required and site      9/15/03    Public Works
                                requirements by including appropriate          design BMPs are encouraged for all             AR and     Environmental
                                conditions of approval in Group 1 projects.    projects (there were no Group 1 projects in    ongoing    Division
                                Report status and provide examples of          FY ‘03-’04). All project applicants receive
                                application of conditions in annual reports.   a copy of the City’s permanent BMP
                                                                               selection matrix which includes guidance
                                                                               on source control BMPs by land use type
                                                                               (see Item C.3.b.2, above). All applicants
                                                                               receive Conditions of Approval related to
                                                                               permanent BMPs for all construction
                                                                               projects.
   C.3.l Update General Plans
General Plan          C.3.l.1   Review current General Plan policies           The comprehensive General Plan is               [Next   Public Works
                                                                                                                                                              Deleted: 05/17/05
Review                          related to water quality and watershed         scheduled for completion by fall ’04. The     scheduled Environmental
                                                                                                                                                              Deleted: 08/10/04
                                                                     Page 6 of 10                                                                    8/1/04
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
FY 2003-2004 Annual Report: New and Redevelopment Requirements
Revised 5/17/05
Cupertino
                            protection and incorporate additional      City is evaluating the applicability of HMP revision Division and
                            policies as needed to implement C.3.       requirements to its sub-watersheds. The after 10/04] Planning
                                                                       outcome of this analysis will determine the
                                                                       need to revise General Plan Section 5,
                                                                       Environmental Resources, to incorporate
                                                                       HMP goals and policies.




                                                                                                                                                    Deleted: 05/17/05
                                                                                                                                                    Deleted: 08/10/04
                                                               Page 7 of 10                                                                8/1/04
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
FY 2003-2004 Annual Report: New and Redevelopment Requirements
Revised 5/17/05
Cupertino

      Activity     Permit             FY03-04 Tasks                                 Status / Comments                  Due Date Responsible
                     Item                                                                                               (mo/yr)    Party
                   Source
   C.3.m Water Quality Review Processes
CEQA Review        C.3.m.1    Review CEQA initial study checklists and    The City’s engineering consultant attended    11/03    Public Works
                              other environmental review documents and    meetings and reviewed SCVURPPP and                     Environmental
                              modify documents as needed to include       City of San Jose memos on how to best                  Division and
                              questions that sufficiently address water   address the 10 sample questions on water               Planning
                              quality impacts of projects.                quality impacts contained in Provisions
                                                                          C.3.m. The consultant gave a training
                                                                          session on this issue to Planning staff on
                                                                          3/23/04. City staff are considering
                                                                          additional written guidance on assessing
                                                                          water quality impacts during the CEQA
                                                                          environmental review process.
   C.3.n Reporting Requirements
Reporting           C.3.n.1   Provide information described in Table 1 of See the attached Reporting Form, Part 1,     9/15/04   Public Works
                              Provision C.3. in annual reports (Program to for the Planning Procedures Performance     AR and    Environmental
                              provide guidance for each annual report).    Standard.                                   ongoing   Division
Reporting           C.3.n.3   Collect and report the following for all new See the attached Reporting Form, Part 1,    9/15/04   Planning and
                              and redevelopment projects: --project        for the Planning Procedures Performance     AR and    Public Works
                              name, location, type (per C.3.c.), size (ac. Standard.                                   ongoing   Engineering
                              or sq.ft.), and impervious surface area. For
                              redevelopment projects, include area of
                              land disturbance.




                                                                                                                                                     Deleted: 05/17/05
                                                                                                                                                     Deleted: 08/10/04
                                                                 Page 8 of 10                                                               8/1/04
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
FY 2003-2004 Annual Report: New and Redevelopment Requirements
Revised 5/17/05
Cupertino

      Activity      Permit                  FY03-04 Tasks                              Status / Comments                   Due Date Responsible
                     Item                                                                                                   (mo/yr)    Party
                    Source
Reporting           C.3.n.4   Collect and report the following for all    There were no Group 1 projects                     Begin to     Planning and
                              projects that must implement treatment      processed by the City in FY ’03-’04.                collect     Public Works
                              measures: BMPs, site design, and source                                                          7/03;      Engineering
                              control measures used, sizing criteria, O&M                                                  First report
                              responsibility mechanism and responsible                                                          FY
                              party.                                                                                        02-03 AR
                                                                                                                            (9/15/03)
Pesticide Control   C.3.n.5   Collect information and report a summary of All applicants for a development permit are 9/15/04             Public Works
Measures                      types of pesticide reduction measures       given information on pesticide-resistant           AR and       Environmental
                              required for development projects and the plants. Starting in 6/04, each applicant is          ongoing      Division and
                              percentage of projects for which pesticide also given the SCVURPPP brochure,                 information    Planning
                              reduction measures were required.           Landscape Maintenance Techniques for              collection
                                                                          Pest Reduction, and the City’s list of
                                                                          pesticide control measures (based on the
                                                                          SCVURPPP’s model pesticide control
                                                                          conditions of approval) to be incorporated
                                                                          into the site design. Planning Division staff
                                                                          feel that it is more effective to distribute the
                                                                          pesticide control measures, Attachment
                                                                          ‘6’, with the development application,
                                                                          rather than waiting to assign equivalent
                                                                          conditions of approval, since the project
                                                                          may already be substantially designed by
                                                                          the time staff review the project to
                                                                          determine the COAs. Out of five projects
                                                                          listed on the reporting form for significant
                                                                          development, two of the landscaping plans
                                                                          listed a couple of pest-resistant varieties
                                                                          and three had no susceptible varieties.
                                                                          The other two projects’ plans were
                                                                          approved prior to the distribution of the list.



                                                                                                                                                                  Deleted: 05/17/05
                                                                                                                                                                  Deleted: 08/10/04
                                                                   Page 9 of 10                                                                          8/1/04
Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
FY 2003-2004 Annual Report: New and Redevelopment Requirements
Revised 5/17/05
Cupertino


New Development and Construction Controls – Construction Site Inspection

             Activity                   FY03-04 Tasks                                 Status / Comments                  Due Date Responsible
                                                                                                                          (mo/yr)    Party
Const Staff training    Hold annual training for building dept. and public   Training for Building and Public Works       11/03   Public Works
PS-6                    works staff.                                         Inspectors was held on 6/8/04. See                   Dept.
                                                                             “Training Activities” report.
Const                   City will include a summary of the year’s written Attachment ‘7’ contains a spreadsheet
PS-5                    inspection notices and follow-up actions in the FY with information on City construction         FY 03-04 Public Works
                        03-04 AR                                           inspection and enforcement activities in        AR     Dept.
                                                                           FY ’03-‘04.
Const Effectiveness     Review and evaluate the effectiveness of city        As part of the training session held on       7/04
PS-8 Evaluation         efforts.                                             6/8/04, inspectors were asked for                    Public Works
                                                                             feedback on the construction site                    Dept.
                                                                             inspections for runoff quality control.
                                                                             Most of the feedback was related to how
                                                                             Building Inspectors should best deal with
                                                                             contractors who receive repeated
                                                                             warnings and notices about relatively
                                                                             minor violations. An example involves a
                                                                             contractor at a redevelopment site with
                                                                             chronic sediment control problems.
                                                                             Inspectors were advised that the City’s
                                                                             Construction Inspection PS contains
                                                                             Enforcement SOPs that call for referring
                                                                             this type of problem to the City’s Public
                                                                             Works Inspector. Inspectors were
                                                                             reminded to use written warning notices.
                                                                             Responses to problems like this will be
                                                                             continued to be evaluated.




                                                                                                                                                          Deleted: 05/17/05
                                                                                                                                                          Deleted: 08/10/04
                                                                 Page 10 of 10                                                                   8/1/04
                                                                                          MEMORANDUM



    Campbell • Cupertino • Los Altos • Los Altos Hills • Los Gatos • Milpitas • Monte Sereno • Mountain View • Palo Alto
       San Jose • Santa Clara • Saratoga • Sunnyvale • Santa Clara County • Santa Clara Valley Water District




TO:               Management Committee

FROM:             John Fusco and Jill Bicknell, Program Staff

DATE:             June 15, 2005 (Final)

SUBJECT:          FY 04-05 Annual Report Preparation Guidance

It’s that time again! The Program's Annual Report is due to the Water Board on September 15,
2005. This memorandum describes the background on and proposed format of the Annual
Report, the draft report outline, instructions for preparing the Co-permittees' sections and the
schedule for completion.

BACKGROUND

The goals of the Annual Report are: 1) to meet specific permit requirements for reporting; and 2)
to provide an efficient mechanism for reporting and self-evaluation without duplicating
information in the work plan or urban runoff management plans (URMPs).

The Annual Report, the Program and Co-permittee Work Plans, and the local program reviews
(and audits) are three elements of the Program's continuous improvement cycle. The Annual
Report describes what has been accomplished over the past fiscal year and provides a self-
evaluation of the effectiveness of activities and needed improvements. The local program
reviews/audits are an external evaluation of effectiveness and identification of improvements.
Both elements provide the basis for revision of work plans to include tasks for implementing
improvements in the next fiscal year.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

In addition to the general requirement that the Program and Co-permittees submit an Annual
Report each year by September 15 (Provision C.6.), other permit requirements related to
reporting include:

•   Provision C.3.n. – new and redevelopment reporting
•   Provision C.4. – PI/P activity reporting
•   Provision C.6.i. and ii. – enhanced reporting for IND and ICID
•   Provision C.9.d. – pesticide use reporting

Guidance on meeting these requirements is provided in this memorandum and/or attachments.


          699 Town & Country Village • Sunnyvale, CA 94086 • tel: (408) 720-8833 • fax: (408) 720-8812
              1410 Jackson Street • Oakland, CA 94612 • tel: (510) 832-2852 • fax: (510) 832-2856
                                               1-800-794-2482
Water Board staff provided comments on the Program and Co-permittees’ FY 03-04 Annual
Report in a letter dated April 8, 2005. Some of the responses are due on June 3, 2005 and
others are to be addressed in the FY 04-05 Annual Report. The Program plans to submit a
compilation of Co-permittee responses, along with responses to Water Board comments on the
Program’s FY 03-04 Annual Report, on June 3.

RESPONSES TO LOCAL PROGRAM REVIEWS

In late April 2005, Tetra Tech, Inc., with assistance from Water Board staff, conducted a
program evaluation of four Co-permittees (Cities of Palo Alto, Milpitas and Santa Clara and
County of Santa Clara). The following program areas were evaluated: ICID/IND inspections and
enforcement, municipal maintenance, new development (C.3.) and construction inspection. The
results of the evaluations may be provided to each Co-permittees by the FY 04-05 Annual report
submittal date of September 15, 2005. If possible, each Co-permittee should respond to Tetra
Tech’s comments within each element of their FY 04-05 Annual Reports.

REPORT OUTLINE AND FORMAT

A draft report outline is attached. Co-permittees will be responsible for providing all information
in Section 10, Co-permittee FY 04-05 Annual Reports, and Program staff will complete all other
sections. Some Program sections will need input from Co-permittees (e.g., Section 3, PI/P,
Section 4, street sweeping data, and Section 9, IND and ICID Summary Tables). The general
format used for the Program’s portion of the FY 03-04 Annual Report (Sections 1 through 10)
was acceptable to Water Board staff, and will be the model format for the FY 04-05 Annual
Report. Program staff will again be reviewing the Co-permittees’ submittals this fiscal year to
help ensure consistency and completeness of the Co-permittee reports.
The FY 04-05 Annual Report will consist of two volumes and one appendix placed in three-ring
binders. Volume I will contain Program’s activities and Volume II will consist of Co-permittees’
activities. The appendices include Program work products and other relevant information
relating to the completion of Program activities.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING CO-PERMITTEE SECTIONS

Consistent with the Water Board staff suggestions on format and the format utilized for the FY
03-04 Annual Report, the Co-permittees should include the following major sections:
• Cover Letter
• Certification Statement
• IC/ID Elimination Activities
• Industrial/Commercial Discharger Control Program
• Public Agency Activities
           o Public Streets, Roads and Highways O&M (including Corporation Yards)
           o Rural Public Works O&M
           o Storm Drain O&M
           o Water Utility O&M
           o Other Public Agency Activities (Golf Courses, Parks, Ponds, etc.)
• New Development Planning Procedures
• Construction Inspection
• Public Information and Participation
• Pesticide Management Activities


                                                                           2
F:\Sc42\Sc42-21\FY-0405-AR\Guidance\Final Guidance_0405\AR0405_guidance_061505_final.doc              6/1505
•    Mercury Pollution Prevention Activities
•    Copper Action Plan/Nickel Action Plan
•    Trash Inventory and Management
•    Water Quality Monitoring
•    Staff Training Summary Table

If Co-permittees have work plan tasks that do not fall under the above categories, they should
add sections to the end of this list. Potential additional sections could include PCB Control
Program (C.9.e.), Control Program for Sediment (C.9.f.), and Watershed Management (C.10.)
To ensure standardization, Water Board staff has requested that all information pertaining to a
program element or requirement (IC/ID, PI/P, Storm drain O & M, etc.) be presented together.
Information to include under each element or requirement should be presented in the following
four subsections:

A. Self-Evaluation Matrix: Reiterate each Work Plan activity for the applicable fiscal year, using
the same table format as the Work Plan. In the “Status/Comments” column, report actions
taken this fiscal year. Evaluation comments may also be placed in this column. Co-permittees
may use the self-evaluation matrix developed for the FY 01-02 Annual Report, but the table
should be split apart into program elements, and the relevant portion of the table included in
each section of the FY 04-05 Annual Report.

B. Evaluation Comments: Provide additional narrative regarding self-evaluation, if needed.

C. Response to Water Board Comments: Respond to Water Board comments on this element in
the previous year’s Annual Report and Water Board/Tetra Tech comments from the audits (if
applicable).

D. Additional Information: Provide additional information (e.g., work summaries, data tables,
graphs, visuals and other relevant information you want to report) within this section.

Please continue to follow acceptable formats submitted in past Annual Reports. Acceptable
formats relating to the following elements or requirements include: pesticide management
activities (Pesticide Management Plan format), mercury pollution prevention activities (Mercury
Pollution Prevention Plan format) and the staff training summary table.

Certification Statements

Certification statements which certify the Annual Report and Completion of Performance
Standards are attached to this memorandum. The certification statement for the Annual Report
is required and should be included after the Cover Letter and before the IC/ID Elimination
Activities Sections (see above). The certification statement pertaining to the Completion of
Performance Standards is optional.




                                                                           3
F:\Sc42\Sc42-21\FY-0405-AR\Guidance\Final Guidance_0405\AR0405_guidance_061505_final.doc             6/1505
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE TO CO-PERMITTEES ON SPECIFIC ELEMENTS

Provision C.3. - New and Redevelopment Reporting Requirements

In accordance with Table 1 of Permit Provision C.3 and the Program’s C.3 Work Plan, Co-
permittees are required to include the following in the September 15, 2005 Annual Report:

C.3.e: BMP O&M Verification Program

        •     Details of O&M Verification Program
              (report progress under Tasks e.1., e.3., and e.5. of C.3. Work Plan)
        •     O&M reporting1 –In accordance with Permit Provision C.3.e.iii, Co-permittee Annual
              Reports should contain the following:
                   o     A description of the organizational structure of the Co-permittee’s O&M
                         verification program;
                   o     An evaluation of the Co-permittee’s O & M verification program’s effectiveness;
                   o     Summary of any planned improvements in O&M verification; and
                   o     A list or summary of treatment BMPs that have been inspected during FY 04-05
                         with inspection results.

C.3.j: Site Design Measures Guidance and Standards Development

        •     Summarize the status of review, revision and implementation of site design measures
              guidance and standards.

C.3.l: General Plan

        •     Summarize any revisions to General Plans that direct land use decisions and require
              implementation of consistent water quality protection measures for development (if the
              revisions have been made). The permit requires each Co-permittee to incorporate water
              quality and watershed protection policies as needed into the next scheduled
              update/revision of its General Plan after October 15, 2004.

C.3.n: Reporting

        •     List Group 1 new development and redevelopment projects that have been approved
              during FY 04-05 by name, type of project, site acreage or square footage, square
              footage of new impervious surface. Where applicable, report treatment BMPs and
              numeric sizing criteria used, O & M responsibility mechanism, site design measures
              used and source control measured required.
              (Use reporting forms provided in the Planning Procedures Performance Standard
              and Attachment VII-3 of the C.3. Stormwater Handbook.)

              Per Water Board staff comments on the C.3.n. reporting forms within their letter entitled
              re: Review of SCVURPPP’s FY 2003-04 Annual Report (dated April 8, 2005), and
              discussions at the C.3. Provision Oversight Ad Hoc Task Group meeting on May 23,
              2005, Co-permittees will continue to use the existing Program reporting form, with the
              following conditions:



1
    A standardized reporting format for O&M verification activities is currently being developed within a separate memorandum by Program staff.


                                                                           4
F:\Sc42\Sc42-21\FY-0405-AR\Guidance\Final Guidance_0405\AR0405_guidance_061505_final.doc                                                          6/1505
           a) All Co-permittees will provide all available information for applicable categories in the
              Program reporting tables.
           b) Co-permittees will report only projects that are approved in the given fiscal year. If
              Co-permittees would like to provide additional information about projects that are in
              the conceptual planning stages or are in the process of being approved, they may do
              so in a separate table that is clearly marked as to the project status.
           c) Co-permittees will list the deemed complete date and the approval date in the
              Project Status column (these dates may be approximate).
           d) Although not required by the permit, Co-permittees will look at the level of effort
              needed to include additional information about the project requested by Water Board
              staff, such as street address, developer name and watershed, and include that
              information if practical.

     •     Describe the status and implementation of the Co-permittee’s policies for stormwater
           requirements at Group 2 sites.
     •     Describe the pesticide reduction measures required for new development and
           redevelopment projects; estimate the percentage of new development and
           redevelopment projects for which pesticide reduction measures were required.

Provision C.6.i. and ii. – Enhanced Reporting for IND and ICID

The November 8, 2004 memorandum from Program staff to the Management Committee re:
Submittal of IND and IC/ID Inspection Data- FY 04-05 discusses the submittal of enhanced
reporting data for IND and ICID (see attached memorandum). Program staff will prepare an
IND and ICID summary report for each Co-permittee detailing their IND and ICID activities for
FY 04-05 and overall summaries for the Program annual report (Section 9). The Program’s
summary report will contain similar information to that found within Section 9 of the FY 03-04
Annual Report (Co-permittee IND and ICID Summary Tables). The data categories to be
provided in Section 9 are discussed in the Recordkeeping/Reporting sections of the Illicit
Connection and Illegal Dumping Elimination Activities and Industrial/Commercial Discharger
Control Program Performance Standards. The Program’s summary reports are intended to
supplement IND and ICID data submitted by the Co-permittees in accordance with the Water
Board staff’s suggested format for these elements. Note: Each Co-permittee will need to
continue submitting IND and ICID data (per Water Board staff’s request) with an evaluation of
effectiveness of both elements within their individual Annual Reports.

In the document entitled Review of the FY 2002-03 Annual Report (dated March 26, 2004),
Water Board staff suggested that the number of each type of enforcement action be contained
in each Co-permittee’s industrial inspection data. This information would indicate “the nature of
follow-up through resolution” and would also support the effectiveness evaluation.

Provision C.9.d. – Pesticide Use Reporting

Water Board staff has requested that Co-permittees do not include pesticide use reports within
the Annual Report but include a summary of how pesticide usage has changed over the past
year or past few years. As stated in the Review of the FY 2002-03 Annual Report, Water Board
staff has requested that “All Co-permittees who report only state-mandated training must also
describe how their employees receive IPM training specific to the goals of their pest
management plans.” Co-permittees should continue reporting this information within their
Annual Reports.


                                                                           5
F:\Sc42\Sc42-21\FY-0405-AR\Guidance\Final Guidance_0405\AR0405_guidance_061505_final.doc                  6/1505
Additional Information

Co-permittees should provide the following information within their Annual Reports:

Trash Characterization and Management Activities- In accordance with the Program’s Trash
Work Plan (dated March 1, 2003), Co-permittees are expected to conduct trash evaluations in a
subset of trash problem areas during FY 04-05. On December 22, 2004, Program staff
provided instructions on the submittal of trash evaluation data for FY 04-05 (see attached
memorandum entitled Submittal of Trash Evaluation Data- FY 04-05). Trash evaluation data
submitted to Program staff should also be provided in individual Annual Reports. To include all
trash evaluation data in the Program’s FY 04-05 Annual Report, it is requested that Co-
permittees submit any additional data (using the attached table entitled Trash Problem Area
Activity Report FY04-05) by Friday, June 17, 2005.

Copper Action Plan/Nickel Action Plan (CAP/NAP) –As in past years, most Co-permittees have
committed to a maximum of eight Cu/Ni control tasks. They may include the following:

CB-1: Vehicle Washing Operations
CB-3: Industrial Copper Control
CB-6/7: Reducing Traffic Congestion/Promoting Alternative Transportation
CB-8: Watershed Assessment and Protection
CB-11: Street Sweeping and Storm Drain O &M (see description below)
CB-12: Outreach on Pool and Spa Maintenance
CB-21: Use of Architectural Copper
NB-1: Measures to Control Nickel Discharges from Construction Sites

Use the Self-Evaluation Matrix to report on the status/comments of each CAP/NAP activity.

Street Sweeping Data - During FY 04-05, Co-permittees were asked to continue collecting
street sweeping data and information relating to other measures which improve sweeping
efficiency; and evaluate the need to improve current street sweeping and storm drain system O
& M programs (see attached memorandum entitled Collection of Street Sweeping Data- FY 04-
05). To complete these tasks, Co-permittees are requested to provide street sweeping data
(using the attached record keeping form) for FY 04-05 to Program staff by Friday, July 22,
2005; and review existing performance standards (i.e., Public Streets, Roads and Highway O&
M and Storm Drain System O &M) and determine if their programs (for both) are effective in
meeting the intent of both model BMPs. Street sweeping data and the results of the review
should be provided in individual Annual Reports. Street sweeping data will be provided in future
Co-permittee Annual Reports.

Rural Public Works Operation and Maintenance – As applicable, Co-permittees began
implementing the Rural Public Works Operation and Maintenance performance standard in FY
03-04. In accordance with the performance standard, Co-permittees should evaluate and report
on the implementation of current rural public works operation and maintenance activities within
their individual Annual Reports. In addition, Co-permittees should annually update their list of
activities.

Public Information and Participation- It is acceptable to keep all types of PI/P activities together
in one table. Clearly indicate which area each activity covers (e.g., general, targeted, etc.). Co-
permittees need to evaluate the mix of PI/P activities conducted each year to see if all areas are
covered. If PI/P activities are covered in another section (e.g., under Pesticide Management or
Mercury Pollution Prevention), they do not have to be repeated here (although they could be
cross-referenced for completeness).

                                                                           6
F:\Sc42\Sc42-21\FY-0405-AR\Guidance\Final Guidance_0405\AR0405_guidance_061505_final.doc               6/1505
Format Changes

Co-permittees should incorporate the following format changes within their Annual Reports:

Numbering of Pages

In the letter entitled Review of SCVURPPP’s FY 2003-04 Annual Report (dated April 8, 2005),
Water Board staff suggested that “For next year’s Annual Report, every Co-permittee should
number the pages of their respective sections sequentially, from the first to the last page.” Co-
permittees should incorporate this change, where applicable.

Acronyms

In the letter entitled Review of SCVURPPP’s FY 2003-04 Annual Report (dated April 8, 2005),
Water Board staff suggested that “For next year’s Annual Report, every Co-permittee should
include a list of acronyms and their definitions in their respective sections.” The Program will
develop a list of standard stormwater acronyms, and Co-permittees can add those that are
specific to their local programs.




                                                                           7
F:\Sc42\Sc42-21\FY-0405-AR\Guidance\Final Guidance_0405\AR0405_guidance_061505_final.doc            6/1505
SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION

The schedule for submittal, review, and completion of report sections is as follows:

Activity                                                                                   Completion

Co-permittees receive report preparation instructions                                      May 19 MC meeting

Co-permittee questions/additional guidance if needed                                       June 16 MC meeting

Draft Program report sections distributed to MC                                            August 12

MC provides comments on Program draft report                                               August 23

Co-permittees submit draft sections for Program staff review*                              August 25

MC approval of draft Program report                                                        August 25 MC meeting**

Co-permittees submit final reports to Program staff                                        September 8

Final Annual Report submitted to Water Board                                               September 15


* Program staff was requested by the Co-permittees to review their submittals for completeness
prior to submittal to the Water Board. If submittals are incomplete, Program staff will request
additional information from the Co-permittees which must be provided by September 8.

** The Management Committee will be requested to reschedule the August meeting for August
25, as has been done in past years.

If you have any questions on the annual report preparation, please contact John Fusco at 510-
832-2852 or jrfusco@eoainc.com.




                                                                           8
F:\Sc42\Sc42-21\FY-0405-AR\Guidance\Final Guidance_0405\AR0405_guidance_061505_final.doc                            6/1505
Santa Clara
Valley Urban                                                Date/Time: June 2, 2005

Runoff Pollution                                            Place: San Jose ESD, San Jose

Prevention Program                                          Who Attended: Mary Morse (Chair, San Jose),
                                                            Kate Slama (SCVWD), Trish Mulvey (CLEAN
                                                            South Bay), Sally Personett (Sunnyvale), Joanne
                                                            Johnson (Milpitas), Zakk Devine (Santa Clara
                                                            County IWM), Roxan Nasiri (Cupertino), Cheri
WEO/PI/P Ad Hoc Task Group                                  Donnelly (West Valley Communities), Vishakha
                                                            Atre (Program staff)
Meeting Summary Report



Watershed Watch RFP
The AHTG reviewed the Budget AHTG comments on the WW RFP and agreed with them. The
AHTG also discussed revising the text under “Campaign Audiences and Messages” and
recommended changes to it.

Mary informed the AHTG that the RFP subgroup has recommended that the Consultant Selection
Panel consist of the following agency representatives: Julie Weiss (Palo Alto), Sally Personett
(Sunnyvale), Mala Magill (WMI COS), Lindsey Wolf (San Jose) and Jill Bicknell (Program staff).
The AHTG approved this recommendation.

Vishakha requested the AHTG to send her names of Public Relations/Media firms that they want the
RFP sent to.
FY 05-06 Annual Report

Vishakha informed the AHTG that per a Regional Board comment on the Program’s FY 01-02
Annual Report, the Program is required to include school outreach activities for all Co-Permittees in
the Program section of the Annual Report. She distributed copies of the template of the reporting
table used in FY 03-04. She will e-mail the table to the AHTG. Co-Permittees will submit their
information to Roxan (and copy Jill) by Wednesday, July 13.

Schools Outreach Activities

Vishakha informed the AHTG that the Budget AHTG has approved the WEO AHTG’s
recommendation that the Schools Outreach funds be placed with the Rose Foundation for
distributing to teachers attending the Wacky Watersheds workshop as stipends. Some AHTG
members expressed concern about the Rose Foundation administrative costs and wondered if
handing out gift cards to teachers would be a better use of resources. Cheri and Mary agreed to
discuss this with Jill. (Note: Following discussions with Jill it was agreed that using gift cards will
not be suitable as it is not known yet how many teachers will attend the workshop or accept the gift
cards. There is a possibility that the Program may be left holding gift cards for a number of years.



F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\WEO 6-2-05 meet summ.doc                                                           1
Additionally, if the funds are placed with the Rose Foundation, they can be used for other projects
recommended by the WEO AHTG. It was agreed that the funds should be given to the Rose
Foundation for disbursement to teachers).

The AHTG also discussed ZunZun assemblies and recommended preparing a brief write up
describing the assemblies. ZunZun can fax/e-mail this write-up to schools prior to the assemblies for
including it in the school newsletters.

PIP Updates

Co-permittees provided the following updates on their PIP activities:

San Jose - Mary distributed copies of the City of San Jose’s new restaurant outreach packet. She also
informed the AHTG that the City is considering doing print runs of the Pool Brochure, Bay Begins
Brochure and the ICID cards.

Sunnyvale - Sally informed the AHTG that she will be conducting outreach at summer camps. The
City is also providing funding to the San Francisco Bird Observatory for taking their outreach
program to schools in Sunnyvale.

Cupertino – Roxan informed the AHTG that the City conducted an IPM campaign last month which
included setting up displays at the community center, library etc. The next outreach campaign will
focus on proper disposal of pool and spa water.

Milpitas – Joanne reported that they distributed outreach literature to 5th grade students in the city.
The City also placed the “Got Bulbs” ad in Yellow Pages.

West Nile Virus Outreach Materials
Kate informed the AHTG that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has developed three fact
sheets on mosquito control. These are available electronically for all agencies to print and distribute.

Vishakha informed the AHTG that the Santa Clara County Vector Control District has developed a
flyer advising residents on which pesticides to use for mosquito control. Most of the recommended
pesticides are pyrethroids. The Vector Control District plans to distribute the flyer as an emergency
measure only. They understand the concerns of storm water agencies and would like to receive
feedback/input on changes that should be made to it. The BASMAA Regional IPM Committee is
considering submitting comments on this to the Vector Control District after consulting with BIRC.
The AHTG discussed this and agreed that BASMAA should submit comments based on BIRC
recommendations. The AHTG would not like to submit comments separately.

Watershed Watch Campaign
The AHTG discussed the FY 04-05 Campaign and appreciated the fall and spring media campaigns.
Gena recommended that the media campaign should continue promoting the fluorescent lamp store
drop-off locations. She said that the County HHW Program was planning to continue this
partnership even after the grant funding ended in March 2006.

The AHTG provided the following recommendations for the FY 05-06 fall campaign:

F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\WEO 6-2-05 meet summ.doc                                                       2
    −   tie in the media campaign to the Pollution Prevention week
    −   focus on pesticides and mercury. Use existing creative
    −   tie in the Happy Hollow Display with the media campaign.
    −   re-run the Classic Car Wash promotion
    −   conduct advertising in Spanish as well as English
    −   re-run the “Got Bulbs” radio contest
The AHTG also recommended that Program staff should send out a request for supplemental
funding to the Pesticide and Mercury Work Groups as soon as possible to provide TRG an idea of
the funding available for the fall media campaign. Zakk Devine informed the AHTG that the
County’s IWM department has about some budget available (in the $10,000 –15,000 range) that
could be used to supplement the media campaign.

Meeting with TRG

Lois updated the AHTG on the following highlights from the “Got Bulbs” media campaign:
−   Total Gross Impressions – 22,127,000
−   Total Advertising Budget - $39,965
−   Total Added Value - $74,610
−   Nearly 400 Got Bulbs contest entries were received by KRTY, mostly from the website and the
    San Jose Mercury News Ad.

Vishakha updated Lois on the WEO AHTG recommendations for the FY 05-06 fall media
campaign. Lois agreed to discuss the recommendations with Marci.

Action Items

•   Mary will make changes to the “Campaign Audiences and Messages” section in the RFP per
    AHTG recommendation.

•   WEO AHTG members will submit schools outreach data to Roxan and Jill by July 13.

Next Meeting: To be decided




F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\WEO 6-2-05 meet summ.doc                                               3
June 2, 2005

To:              Jill Bicknell, SCVURPPP
                 Vishakha Atre, SCVURPPP

From:            Lois Humphreys, TRG & Associates

RE:              Watershed Education & Outreach – Watershed Watch
                 Campaign – FY 04-05
                 May 2005 Activity

Campaign Accomplishments:

      •   ZunZun school assemblies for the 2004/2005 school year continue. 50
          shows booked at 27 schools.

      •   Pledge cards returned – 1

      •   Hotline calls – 5

      •   Web page views - 406 page views per day average; 4 of the top 10
          pages viewed are Spanish; Top pages include: the number one page is
          the Spanish All About Watersheds page, 2nd is the English Problems and
          Solutions page; 3rd is the Watershed Watch home page. Top downloads:
          1. Good Bug Tub Fact Sheet 2. Spanish WW brochure 3. English spiders
          fact sheet. There were 9 contact requests (3 Spanish, 6 English); 1 WW
          kit requests; 0 Spanish WW kit requests. Watershed Watch Discount
          Card was downloaded 22 times from web site in May.

      •   Kits distributed this month:

          Spanish kits – 0
          English kits – 20
   •   Events in May: International Migratory Bird Day

   •   Events in June: None

Tasks Completed in May:

Task 3 Partner Coordination
   • Revised and Updated partner chart
   • Contacted partners about event/workshop follow-up

Task 7 Events
   • Updated events calendar
   • International Migratory Bird Day event
   • Creek Connections meetings
   • Inventoried event materials
   • Submitted event report for International Migratory Bird Day event

Task 8 Media
   • Follow-up with KRTY and EOA re: Got Bulbs contest

Task 11 Web Site
   • Conducted monthly updates/maintenance of site/answered inquiries
   • Collected web site data for monthly report
   • Posted pertinent news articles from area news sources to News, Media &
      Events page
   • Updated front page of web site
   • Posted partner event information on front page of web site
   • Posted workshop and CCAG event information on front page of site

Task 12 Reports & Meetings
   • Developed and submitted May monthly report/ collected stats
   • Conducted ongoing communications with SCVURPPP staff
Watershed Watch Web Stats

Date     Avg.    Top pages                        No. of Top    Top Search   Most          Contact        WW Kit         Comments
         Page                                     Pages         Engine       Download      Form           Requests
         Views                                                  Referrals    ed Pages      Requests
Jul 04   274     /index.htm                       English - 5   Google,      Yellow        14             English - 10   WW discount card
                 /description_Spanish.htm         Spanish -5    Yahoo and    Jackets,                     Spanish- 0     downloaded 21 times from
                 /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.ht                  Search       Ants and                                    the web site
                 m                                              MSN          Snails and
                 /important_Spanish.htm                                      Slugs fact
                 /Solutions.htm                                              sheets
                 /IPM+Fact+Sheets/Fact+Sheets/Y
                 ellowjackets_042.pdf
                 /index_IPM.htm
                 /IPM_Index_Sp.htm
                 /prevent_Spanish.htm
                 /IPM+Fact+Sheets/Fact+Sheets/A
                 nts_042.pdf
Aug 04   328     /index.htm                       English - 4   Google,      Yellow        English - 4    English - 6    WW discount card
                 /description_Spanish.htm         Spanish -6    Yahoo and    Jackets,      Spanish- 4     Spanish- 0     downloaded 44 times from
                 /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.ht                  Search       Snails and                                  the web site
                 m                                              MSN          Slugs and
                 /important_Spanish.htm                                      fleas fact
                 /IPM+Fact+Sheets/Fact+Sheets/Y                              sheets
                 ellowjackets_042.pdf
                 /Solutions.htm
                 /index_IPM.htm
                 /IPM_Index_Sp.htm
                 /prevent_Spanish.htm
                 /problem_Spanish.htm
Sep 04   460     /index.htm                       English - 5   Google,      Ants,         English - 13   English - 29   WW discount card
                 /Solutions.htm                   Spanish -5    Yahoo and    Spiders and   Spanish- 1     Spanish- 0     downloaded 57 times from
                 /index_IPM.htm                                 Search       Good Bug                                    the web site
                 /description_Spanish.htm                       MSN          Tub fact
                 /important_Spanish.htm                                      sheets
                 /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.ht
               m
               /IPM+Fact+Sheets/Fact+Sheets/A
               nts_042.pdf
               /factsheets.htm
               /prevent_Spanish.htm
               /problem_Spanish.htm
Oct 04   428   /index.htm                       English - 5   Google,     Ants,          English - 8   English - 18   WW discount card
               /description_Spanish.htm         Spanish -5    Yahoo and   Snails &       Spanish - 1   Spanish- 0     downloaded 46 times from
               /Solutions.htm                                 Search      Slugs and                                   the web site
               /description.htm                               MSN         Yellow
               /important_Spanish.htm                                     Jackets fact                                19 people filled out and
               /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.ht                              sheets                                      submitted the Watershed
               m                                                                                                      Watch Internet quiz in
               /index_IPM.htm                                                                                         October.
               /index_Spanish.htm
               /IPM_Index_Sp.htm
               /IPM+Fact+Sheets/Fact+Sheets/S
               nails_and_Slugs_042.pdf
Nov 04   323   /description_Spanish.htm         English - 6   Google,     English        English - 8   English - 11   WW discount card
               /index.htm                       Spanish -4    Yahoo and   Snails &       Spanish - 1   Spanish- 1     downloaded 33 times from
               /Solutions.htm                                 Search      Slugs,                                      the web site
               /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.ht                  MSN         Spanish
               m                                                          Lawns and                                   10 people filled out and
               /description.htm                                           English                                     submitted the Watershed
               /IPM_Index_Sp.htm                                          fleas fact                                  Watch Internet quiz in
               /prevent.htm                                               sheets                                      October.
               /index_Spanish.htm
               /watershed.htm
               /index_IPM.htm
Dec 04   268   /index.htm                       English - 7   Google,     Spanish        English - 1   English - 0    WW discount card
               /Solutions.htm                   Spanish - 3   Yahoo and   Lawns,         Spanish - 1   Spanish - 0    downloaded 28 times from
               /description_Spanish.htm                       Search      Spanish                                     the web site
               /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.ht                  MSN         WW
               m                                                          brochure,
               /pdf_files/PoolsBro+FINAL.pdf                              Flouresant
               /kitform.htm                                               lamps
               /IPM+Fact+Sheets/Lawns.Sp.pdf                              disposal
               _1.pdf                                                     fact sheet
               /description.htm
               /index_IPM.htm
               /Downloads.htm
Jan 05   251   description_Spanish.htm        English - 7   Google,      Spanish       English - 4   English - 4   WW discount card
               /index.htm                     Spanish - 3   Yahoo and    Lawns,        Spanish - 5   Spanish - 0   downloaded 18 times from
               /description.htm                             Search       Spanish                                   the web site
               /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.                  MSN          WW
                                                                         brochure,
               htm
                                                                         pools
               /Solutions.htm                                            brochure
               /index_Spanish.htm
               /prevent.htm
               /Partners.htm
               /pdf_files/PoolsBro+FINAL.pd
               f
               /important.htm
Feb 05   279   /description_Spanish.htm       English - 7   Google,      Spanish       English -     English - 3   WW discount card
               /index.htm                     Spanish - 3   Yahoo and    WW            Spanish -     Spanish - 0   downloaded 13 times from
               /description.htm                             webask.com   brochure,                                 the web site
               /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.                               Kids
                                                                         Guide, Got
               htm
                                                                         Dirt? print
               /Solutions.htm                                            ad
               /index_Spanish.htm
               /prevent.htm
               /watershed.htm
               /Education.htm
               /Partners.htm
Mar 05   308   /description_Spanish.htm       English - 6   Google,      Pool          English - 2   English - 2   WW discount card
               /index.htm                     Spanish - 4   Yahoo and    Guide,        Spanish - 2   Spanish - 0   downloaded 13 times from
               /description.htm                             webask.com   Spanish                                   the web site
               /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.                               WW
                                                                         brochure,
               htm
                                                                         Kids Guide
               /Solutions.htm
               /prevent.htm
               /index_Spanish.htm
               /pdf_files/PoolsBro+FINAL.pd
                f
                /Education_Sp.HTM
                /Education.htm
Apr 05    398   /description_Spanish.htm      English - 6   Google,      Kids         English - 0   English - 2   WW discount card
                /index.htm                    Spanish - 4   Yahoo and    Guide,       Spanish - 2   Spanish - 0   downloaded 23 times from
                /Solutions.htm                              webask.com   Spanish                                  the web site
                /description.htm                                         WW
                /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.                              brochure,
                                                                         Good Bug
                htm                                                      Tub Fact
                /CCW.htm                                                 Sheet
                /index_Spanish.htm
                /Education_Sp.HTM
                /Education.htm
                /prevent.htm
May 05    406   /description_Spanish.htm      English - 6   Google,      Good Bug     English - 6   English - 1   WW discount card
                /Solutions.htm                Spanish - 4   Yahoo and    Tub Fact     Spanish - 3   Spanish - 0   downloaded 22 times from
                /index.htm                                  webask.com   Sheet,                                   the web site
                /IPM_Problems_Solutions_Sp.                              Spanish
                htm                                                      WW
                                                                         brochure,
                /description.htm                                         Spiders
                /index_Spanish.htm                                       fact sheet
                /Education_Sp.HTM
                /EEC_Schedule.htm
                /Education.htm
                /Partners.htm
June 05
                                                 Watershed Watch Partnerships
                                                    Added-Value Resources



                                                                                                         Estimated    Estimated
                                            Description of Resources
     Partner                                                                                               Value        Value
                                     - Items in bold indicate 03/04 activities
                                                                                                         2004/2005    2003/2004
Guadalupe River    WW kit distribution, articles in GRPG newsletter & on their web site, web link,      $16,000      $13,000
Park & Gardens     event participation (Pumpkins in the Park, Spring in Guadalupe Gardens, Water
                   Wizard Day camps), joint news releases.
                   Potential co-sponsor of IPM workshop in 2005 and co-sponsor status of
                   Pumpkins in the Park event, event web link, volunteers at Pumpkins in
                   the Park event.
Green Business     The Green Business Program added $10,000 plus some production                        $15,000
Program            and/or design costs to the mercury outreach campaign.

Santa Clara        Joint promotions of campaign and HHW events, joint press releases, web link          $6,000       $6,000
County HHW         Potential co-sponsor of IPM workshop in 2005.
                   Mercury outreach campaign sponsor.
The Watershed      Web link                                                                             $1,000       $1,000
Program            *Asked for link on the front page of their new web site.
(formerly the
Aquatic Outreach
Institute)
RAFT               WW kit distribution                                                                  $0           $0
                   RAFT will allow WW to set up booth at warehouse for exposure to teachers
                   Web site links
                   Promotion of Wacky Watershed workshop held at RAFT
                   Considering adding WW kits to Wacky Watershed workshop materials.
San Jose Chamber   WW kit distribution, possible web link, access to member lists to publish articles   $0           $0
of Commerce        in their newsletters, assistance in securing partnerships with chamber members,
                   possible workshop coordination with SCVURPPP




   Watershed Watch Partner Chart                                                                                               1
   June 05
Children’s           WW kit distribution, articles, events, participation in BIOSITE water                  $15,000   $15,000
Discovery            monitoring/school education program. cross-promotion of BioSITE/WW with
Museum               news stories, Family Science Day participation, co-sponsored Watershed Day at
                     CDM. Working on grant proposal for video project with CDM.
Don Edwards San      WW Kit distribution                                                                    $25,000   $25,000
Francisco Bay        Participation in Migratory Bird Day
Wildlife Refuge at   Watershed education classes
Alviso               Web Link
Creek                Tie into Fall and Spring Clean Up event. Co-sponsor status for cleanup events,         $25,000   $25,000
Connections          listing w/ logo on SJMN advertisements, PSAs, volunteer forms.
                     Link on web site; value shown is through media partners’ promos (KRTY, KBAY,
                     KLOK)
Keep California      Bags, gloves & giveaways for Spring cleanup event                                      $1,000    $1,000
Beautiful
Happy Hollow Zoo     .50 cent discount on admission with Watershed Watch Discount Card                      $30,000   $30,000
& Park               Free admission tickets used in contests/promotions
                     Will place news articles in their newsletter
                     House permanent watershed display, co-planning of IMBD event.
Strong               Kit distribution, Creek cleanup event collaboration, web site link, access to          $10,000   $10,000
Neighborhoods        neighborhood association members, co-sponsoring of workshops.
Bonfante             Discounted admission coupons                                                           $1,000    $1,000
Gardens              Event participation to be determined.
                     Free tickets to use for contests/promotions
Chinese              Distributing 200 kits to members                                                       $500      $500
American Mutual
Assistance
Association
Greenbelt Alliance   Distribution of kits                                                                   $300      $300

Pick up San Jose     Web link on their Pick Up San Jose web page.                                           $0        $1,000

Going Native         Conducting native garden tour on 4/18/04. Including WW logo on signage, flyer,         $5000     $5000
Garden Tours         and volunteer t-shirts. Distributing WW kits
                     Conducting native garden tour in Spring 2005.
San Francisco Bay    Web links, newsletter articles, space in their email newsletter (1,800 distribution)   $3,000    $3,000
Bird Observatory
   Watershed Watch Partner Chart                                                                                                2
   June 05
San Jose           Distribution of 500 kits                                                   $650      $500
Conservation
Corps
Classic Car Wash   Eight week promotion with radio and Mercury News; distribution of          $5,000    $5,000
                   flyers and kits; discount on car washes, distribution of receipt flyers.
Kelly Moore        25% discount on paints and 10% off sundries through 2004.                  $20,000   $20,000
Paints             Distribution of WW receipt flyers.
Quality Tune       Four week promotion with KUFX; distribution of flyers and kits;            $35,000   $35,000
                   discount on tune ups. Ad space in mailer (400,000 distribution).
                   Distribution of WW receipt flyers and display of Watershed Watch
                   poster at QT South Bay locations.
KLOK/KBRG          Signage & materials in the KBRG/KLOK booth at one or two Fall events.      $28,500   $19,000+
100.3/KLOK         Sponsorship mention in 20 shared :30 promotional announcements
1170               Distribute WW kits at three events or van stops each month, Sept. &                  $21,500
                   Oct.
                   Watershed Watch Quiz on KBRG’s new web site. Station to provide
                   prizes for enter to win contest of all entries filled out correctly
                   20 :30 promotional announcements to support a promotion w/ a 3rd
                   party sponsor
                   Continue to develop packages to attract 3rd party sponsors
San Jose Mercury   Promotion department to provide 126 inches in promotional ad space         $52,248   $34,000+
News               to promote SCVURPPP’s Classic Car Wash promotion.
                   Promotion department to provide 90 inches in promotional ad space to                 $22,248
                   support another promotion or to augment SCVURPPP’s existing in-
                   paper campaign
Viacom Outdoor     38% discount off taillight bus posters                                     $38,700   $25,200
                   25 bonus posters for a total of 100
                   Matching 1:1, 4-week minimum override, space available                               $25,200
KUFX 98.5 FM       25% discount on rates                                                      $25,325   $24,800
                   Matching 1:1 bonus ROS schedule
                   “Sticker Stop” at Quality Tune-Up with Watershed Watch promos
                   Website home page hyperlink
                   PSA coverage
                   Continue to develop packages/promotions to attract 3rd party
                   sponsors


   Watershed Watch Partner Chart                                                                                  3
   June 05
KEZR 106.5 FM     “Top of The Hour” sweeps, 60 :05 messages to rotate M-F 6a-7p, over          $35,108    $26,833
                  the six week flight
                  Free production of commercials and PSA’s
                  30 PSA’s to air over the six week flight
                  Kelly Moore promotion, contest & online quiz, 140 spots
                  Website banner and link
                  Continue to develop packages to attract 3rd party sponsors
KRTY 95.3 FM      30% discount on combo rate for KRTY/KLIV                                     $58,550    $22,600
KLIV 1590 AM      100 :20 promotional mentions to support Classic Car Wash Promotion
                  4 live remotes, 7-9am, with 2 :60 live call-ins to support Classic Car                  $22,435
                  Wash Promotion
                  Matching 1:1 bonus ROS schedule
                  PSA coverage on KRTY and KLIV
                  Continue to develop packages to attract 3rd party sponsors
                  Got Bulbs promotion; web contest, 100 live :20 promotional
                  announcements, web site exposure, 3rd party contest prize
KBAY              Free spots; event participation; WW question of the day posted on web site   $0         $25,700


Pure Water        Distribution of Watershed Watch kits                                         $250
Stores

Summerwinds       Distribution of Greening Your Green Thumb workshop promotional               $3,500
Nursery           materials.
                  Donated 100 drought resistant grasses for workshop.


  Total Value
                                                                                               $456,631   $466,816
    Added




   Watershed Watch Partner Chart                                                                                    4
   June 05
                               Santa Clara Valley
                               Urban Runoff
                               Pollution Prevention Program
          Campbell • Cupertino • Los Altos • Los Altos Hills • Los Gatos • Milpitas • Monte Sereno • Mountain View • Palo Alto
                   San Jose • Santa Clara • Saratoga • Sunnyvale • Santa Clara County • Santa Clara Valley Water District




                Conducting Stormwater Treatment Best Management Practices
                          Maintenance and Inspections Workshop
                                                    Thursday, June 9, 2005
                                                Quinlan Community Center,
                                             10185 N. Stelling Road, Cupertino


                                               WORKSHOP AGENDA
__________________________________________________________________________________________


        8:30          Registration and Refreshments

        9:00          Introduction to Stormwater BMP Maintenance:                                     Jill Bicknell, SCVURPPP
                      Requirements and Considerations

        9:15          Treatment BMP O&M Verification Program                                           John Fusco, SCVURPPP
                      Documentation and Reporting

        9:30          Establishing a Post-Construction BMP Inspection                                 Kristy McCumby Hyland,
                      Program - One City's Approach                                                           City of Sunnyvale

        9:45          Lakemont Facility – Operations and Maintenance                                      Lisa Austin, Geosyntec
                      Experience                                                                                     Consultants

       10:15          Break

       10:30          Performance of a California Stormwater Pond: Heron                             Gary Shawley, Alameda
                      Bay Pond                                                                   County Public Works Agency

       11:00          Lessons Learned from the California Department of                                  Scott Taylor P.E., RBF
                      Transportation BMP Retrofit Pilot Program                                                      Consulting

       Noon           Lunch and Vendor Exhibition

                                        (Continued on Next Page)




F:\SC\SC53\New Devmt\BMP O&M Workshop\Agenda Final1.doc              1
        1:00          Mosquito Management and Stormwater Treatment   Dan Strickman, Santa Clara
                      BMP Maintenance                                    County Vector Control
                                                                                        District

        1:30          How to Maintain and Inspect Vegetated Swales          Steve Aguiar, City of
                                                                                      Livermore

        2:00          Porous Pavement Maintenance Issues               Jill Bicknell, SCVURPPP
                                                                                             and
                                                                       Andy Youngs, California-
                                                                      Nevada Cement Promotion
                                                                                       Council

        2:45          Questions & Answers                              Jill Bicknell, SCVURPPP

        3:00          Adjourn




F:\SC\SC53\New Devmt\BMP O&M Workshop\Agenda Final1.doc   2
                                 Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative
                                            Core Group Minutes - Draft
                                                    June 2, 2005
                                                  9:30 AM – 1 PM
                                          Santa Clara Valley Water District

        Attending:        Nancy Bernardi, Phil Bobel, Viv Blomenkamp, Ken Davies, Ann Draper, Wendy
                          Edde, Lorrie Gervin, Larry Johmann, Kristy McCumby Hyland, Trish Mulvey (by
                          phone), Alice Ringer, Kirsten Struve, Luisa Valiela (by phone), Sarah Young,
                          Diane Zarate

        Co-Chairs: Phil Bobel, Lorrie Gervin
        Scribe: Alice Ringer


        I. INTRODUCTIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
        The Core Group members introduced themselves. Alice Ringer announced she is leaving as the
        WMI Project Coordinator to take on a new job with the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Her
        last day is June 7. She will be a Program Administrator for the District's Water Use Efficiency
        Unit, working on projects involving recycled water and other alternative water supply
        technologies. Core Group members presented her with a card and thanked her for her years of
        service and contributions to the WMI. Ken Davies of the City of San Jose will be taking on most
        of the functions of the WMI Coordinator, providing support and coordination for the Core Group
        and the Communications Subgroup.

        II. REVIEW OF AGENDA
        There were no changes made to the agenda.

        III. REVIEW MINUTES AND ACTION ITEMS
        There were no changes to the May 2005 Core Group minutes. In the Table below, Action Items
        are divided into two tables, Current Action Items and Future Action Items. Within each table,
        Action Items are sorted by Action Item number.

#                  Carryover & Current Action Items                     Reference to Assigned to Date Due Status
              (sorted by who the Action Item is assigned to)            Minutes
426   Bruce to work on a Fact Sheet for the Visual Preference           Sept. 2004 B. Frisbey      6/6/05 Discussed at
      Survey.                                                                                                 5/13/05 COS
450   All to contribute updates to List of Parallel Efforts. Alice to   Feb. 2005   All                       Agendize
      send out an email clarifying the information needed.                                                    for COS
451   Using list of parallel efforts as a start, produce a chart        Feb. 2005   Unassigned                Agendize
      showing all the watershed-related efforts and stakeholder                                               for COS
      processes.
469   Update WMI website to delete or make meeting location             June 2005   Alice/Ken     July 2005
      information accurate.
470   Send out a “cleaned up” Workplan Matrix with the deletions                    Ken Davies      6/9/05
      suggested at the meeting.
471   Using Workplan Matrix, submit suggestions revisions and any                   All            End of
      additions for new Activities and tasks.                                                       June

#                    FUTURE Action Items                     Reference to Assigned to       Date Due Status
                       (sorted by date to)                   Minutes
        WMI Meeting Minutes                                                                                   Page 1
350 Convene a group and frame the discussion for data Sept. 2002       Comm.          11/21/03 Pending Steward-
    management needs among relevant parties (SCVWD,                    Subgroup       July 2005 ship Plans
    SCVURPPP) and report back to Core Group.
326 LUS to submit Short-term issue application for a  May 2002,        T. Mulvey,      July 2002 Pending Guidelines &
    forum for transportation and stormwater quality.  page 1           A. Oliveri     July 2005 Stds and funding

         IV. WMI Workplan Update

         Alice Ringer handed out a matrix of possible Activities and Tasks for the 2005-2006 Workplan.
         This matrix includes all of the tasks from the previous workplan, and Alice has added new tasks
         and has updated a few tasks, based on discussions at previous Core Group meetings. Core
         Group members went through an exercise to determine which activities and tasks should remain,
         be deleted, or revised. Ken Davies will update this matrix based on the discussion today and will
         send it out for everyone to submit additional updates. The WMI will hold a full-day retreat on
         August 4 instead of a Core Group meeting, and plans to finalize the 2005 workplan at the retreat.

         V. Indicators Workgroup (Workgroup I)

         The draft Phase I Environmental Indicator Development Technical Report was handed out.
         Louisa Squires explained the efforts made so far to arrive at this draft report. The purposes of
         this technical report are to:
             1. Document the approach taken to develop watershed health indicators.
             2. Provide resources for the development of indicators.
             3. Present results of the workgroup to come up with Candidate Indicators.
         The workgroup felt it was important to do an internal review before having a wider review that
         includes the WMI distribution list. However, they are accepting comments from Workgroup I
         and Core Group members. Comments should be emailed to Louisa Squires
         (lsquires@valleywater.org) and Kirsten Struve (kirsten.struve@sanjoseca.gov) by June 13.

         An abbreviated tech report (Executive Summary and results of Candidate Indicators) was
         distributed to the Water Resources Protection Collaborative (WRPC), and is expecting
         comments from the WRPC at the same time. The workgroup will be reporting out to the
         Institutional Arrangements Team of the WRPC on June 14. The second draft is expected to be
         distributed by June 27 for wide distribution that includes the WMI contact list.

         Louisa also gave a brief description of the Phase I effort up to this point. The group screened the
         possible indicators using the following criteria:
             1. Relationship to management concerns or assessment questions
             2. Cost effectiveness
             3. Availability of data
         The selection of high priority indicators was by best professional judgement. The identification
         of the indicators for data collection is part of the next Phase (Phase 2).


         VI. Communications Subgroup (COS)

         WMI Factsheet
         Alice handed out a draft outline and the draft pieces received so far for the WMI Factsheet #4,
         which will be the Factsheet on Implementation. Additional pieces should be submitted to Ken
         Davies, who will continue compiling the pieces for the factsheet.

WMI Meeting Minutes                                                                             Page 2
Outreach for Report on Visual Preference Survey
Alice gave a brief update on the outreach strategy for the Report on the Visual Preference
Survey. A draft factsheet for this report has been finished and COS will be reviewing at their
next meeting.

VII. Water Resources Protection Collaborative (WRPC)

Ann Draper, the lead Water District staff on the Collaborative, came to provide an update on the
Collaborative and to discuss ideas for coordination between the WMI and the Collaborative.
Ann’s role as Assistant Operating Officer in the Watershed Planning Division will include
leading the new Office of Watershed Planning as well as working on other strategic projects with
Jim Fiedler. The new Office of Watershed Planning will include the staff in the current
Watershed Planning unit.

The Collaborative has been working for about two years on a variety of projects. Their
deliverables will be completed in August, after which they will go into an implementation phase.
The Collaborative is represented by cities (including directors of planning divisions and
environmental departments) organizations such as the GCRCD and Farm Bureau.

The organizational structure will change as it moves into implementation. One of the ideas
discussed is to go from monthly to quarterly meetings, and that some of the implementation
activities would be carried out by a variety of people and entities. This implementation is one of
the ideas in which there is potential for the WMI to be involved. Ann stressed that this is
currently an idea that she will be proposing to the Collaborative Steering Committee; the
Collaborative will be making the decisions on the implementation strategy.

Ann also answered questions from Core Group members about the Collaborative, including what
has been planned so far for implementation of the Guidelines and Standards.

VIII. Other Subgroup Status Reports

Land Use Subgroup (LUS)
Wendy Edde announced that she is leaving SCVURPPP to begin a new job for the City of Bend
in Oregon. She gave a status report on the tasks the group has completed. LUS submitted
comments for the Visual Preference Report Outreach. LUS also submitted a matrix of LUS
tasks, with the comment that these should be integrated into the updated WMI workplan. Wendy
also handed out a draft of their update to the Parallel Efforts Summary Table which could be
considered as a template for the master table for the WMI. LUS is looking into secure a Chair
and SCVURPPP will continue to provide support staff.

Stewardship Planning Advisory Group (formerly SPW)
This group met on May 16 with good attendance from District staff and external stakeholders.
The Project Team members attended the meeting and gave a presentation on the Existing
Conditions for the Lower Peninsula and West Valley Watershed Management Areas. The
second part of the meeting included a ranking exercise for stewardship projects. There are two
tiers to the ranking process:
    1. Provide recommendations for projects already planned and/or funded.
    2. Identification of “Gleam in the Eye” projects that came out of Visioning interviews.
In addition, there probably needs to be a third tier for programmatic elements.
The Project Team is trying to complete the Visioning Chapters and is aiming to submit this by
WMI Meeting Minutes                                                                           Page 3
end of this week. The Project Team is still aiming to have for the Draft Complete Plans by the
end of the month. There will be a SPAG meeting on July 13 to discussing major comments and
issues.

Watershed Assessment and Monitoring Subgroup (WAMS)
WAMS held a meeting on May 19. They heard a presentation by Lester McKee on Guadalupe
Bedload studies, and by Chris Sommers on an update of SCVURPPP’s monitoring efforts. For
the June 21 WAMS meeting, Paul Randall will present on the efforts to Update the Stream
Studies Inventory Update.

Wetlands Advisory Group (WAG)
This group did not have a report this month.

IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no other announcements at this time.

X. NEXT AGENDA/MEETING

NOTE CHANGE IN MEETING DATE: The next WMI Core Group meeting will be on
Thursday, July 14, 2005, at the San Jose Watershed Protection Offices. The agenda for this
meeting will be sent out by July 8.

Items for the July Core Group agenda include:
    • Approval of Technical Report on Indicators
    • Presentation on Guadalupe Mercury TMDL
    • Planning for WMI Retreat in August

XI. MEETING EVALUATION
The group did not do an evaluation this month.

XII. ISSUE BIN
The latest version of the Issue Bin is now located in the Documents section of the WMI website:
http://www.scbwmi.org/downloads-wmi.htm




WMI Meeting Minutes                                                                        Page 4
     Subgroup Meetings

     Below are the standing meeting dates and this month’s confirmed meeting dates for all
     Subgroups that announced their meeting information at the Core Group. Please contact
     Subgroup Chairs to confirm the meeting date, time and location. A contact list for Subgroup
     Chairs may be obtained from Ken Davies (ken.davies@sanjoseca.gov).


Subgroup                     Standing           Next Meeting   Meeting Time         Meeting Location
                             Meeting Date       Date
Communications               2nd, 4th Fridays   June 10        2 – 4 PM             San Jose WSP
                                                                                    (3099 N 1st St., San Jose)
Emerging Contaminants        No standing        TBA
Workgroup                    meeting date
Land Use Subgroup            4th Wednesday      Sept. 7        10 AM (time to       San Jose WSP
                                                               be confirmed)        (3099 N 1st St., San Jose)
Permit Workgroup             No standing        June 7                              San Jose/Santa Clara
                             meeting date                                           WPCP
Wetlands                     No standing        TBA
                             meeting date
Stewardship Planning         No standing        July 13        Time to be           SCVWD HQ, Room A-
Advisory Group (formerly     meeting date                      announced            143
SPW)
WAMS (formerly WAS)          3rd Tuesday        June 21        9:30 AM – 12 PM SJ WPCP

Workgroup I                  2nd Thursday       May 12         12:30 – 2:30 PM      San Jose WSP
(WMI Indicators)                                                                    (3099 N 1st St., San Jose)




     WMI Meeting Minutes                                                                           Page 5
Santa Clara
Valley Urban
                                                                  Date/Time: May 23, 2005, 1:00 – 2:45 pm
Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program                                                Place: Cupertino City Hall, Conf. Rm. C

                                                                   Who Attended: Kristy McCumby Hyland
C3 Provision Oversight AHTG                                   (Sunnyvale); Cheryl Donnelly (West Valley
Meeting Summary Report                                        Communities); Paramjit Uppal (Milpitas); Anastazia
                                                              Aziz, Maria Angeles, Bill Scott (San Jose); Trish
                                                              Duarte and Sandy Baily (Los Gatos); Genevieve Fire
                                                              (Cupertino); Eric Anderson (Mountain View); Joe
                                                              Teresi (Palo Alto); Pamela Wu (Santa Clara County);
                                                              Dale Jacques (Santa Clara Valley Water District); Dan
                                                              Strickman (Santa Clara County Vector Control
                                                              District); Kelly Rohlfs (Stanford University); Sue Ma
                                                              (RWQCB); Jill Bicknell, John Fusco and Linda
                                                              Bulkeley (SCVURPPP).



    Key Issues Discussed:

    •    Announcements – The California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) will hold its first annual
         conference on October 3-5 in Ontario and will include pre-conference workshops on industrial-
         commercial inspections, program management, and hydromodification. The StormCon conference
         will be held on July 18-21 in Orlando, Florida.
    •    BMP O&M Workshop – Linda Bulkeley, Program staff, distributed and summarized the latest draft
         workshop agenda. Task Group members said they did not want to hear about maintenance from
         proprietary product vendors and offered suggestions for alternatives speakers. Jill reported that 60
         SCVURPPP agency staff have signed up for the training. Water Board staff Sue Ma and Jan O’Hara
         have been invited and may attend the event.
    •    BASMAA New Development Committee Update – Jill provided an update from the May BASMAA
         New Development Committee meeting on two BASMAA projects: 1) the regional Site Design
         Guidebook; and 2) the automated tool for calculating the size of treatment BMPs. To complete the
         Site Design Guidebook, EOA is working with the San Mateo and Alameda stormwater programs and
         Brendan Thompson of the Friends of the Estuary/Water Board is working with North Bay stormwater
         programs on each program’s respective contribution to the Guidebook. Regarding the automated
         sizing tool, the Contra Costa Clean Water Program has formulated its own approach to a BMP sizing
         tool which uses simple standard designs for landscape based treatment BMPs. The BASMAA Work
         Group would like to incorporate some of Contra Costa’s ideas yet maintain the more comprehensive
         CASQA BMP Handbook approach and include volume-based treatment BMPs. A set of standard
         design parameters has been developed and needs review.
              Jill Bicknell will send Task Group members the draft standard design parameters to be used in the
              automated BMP sizing tool for review.
    •    C.3 Reporting Requirements
         o    Group 1 and 2 Project Reporting – Water Board staff member Sue Ma and the Task Group
              discussed reporting for Group 1 and 2 projects and the WB staff’s proposed new reporting table.
              Sue explained why WB staff wanted additional information in the table, and that this was a
              potential format for the Regional Permit. Task Group members thought it was more appropriate
              to continue using the Program’s previously approved form for the FY 04-05 report, since they
              have been collecting data for these tables during the year and have established tracking
              databases/spreadsheets based on the approved format. San Jose, which processes over 50 new
              project applications per year, said they would need a long lead-time to change reporting

F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\C3PO AHTG min 5-23-05 final1.doc                                                           1
              structures. In addition, Task Group members were concerned that they might be required to
              switch to a different format when the Regional Permit is approved.
              In order to better meet Water Board concerns, Program staff proposed that Co-permittees
              continue to use the existing Program reporting form, with the following conditions:
              a) Co-permittees will provide consistent and complete information for applicable categories in
                 the Program reporting tables.
              b) Co-permittees will report only projects that are approved in the given fiscal year. If Co-
                 permittees would like to provide additional information about projects that are in the
                 conceptual planning stages or are in the process of being approved, they may do so in a
                 separate table that is clearly marked as to the project status.
              c) Co-permittees will list the deemed complete date and the approval date in the Project Status
                 column (these dates may be approximate).
              d) Co-permittees will look at the level of effort needed to include additional information about
                 the project requested by Water Board staff, such as street address, developer name and
                 watershed, and include that information if practical.
              Co-permittee staff expressed their willingness to provide more detailed data on individual
              projects of interest to Board staff in response to a specific request (for example, if Board staff are
              going to be in the area and they are interested in visiting a construction site or seeing a completed
              project). It was generally agreed that once a project entered the construction phase, the
              Construction General Permit NOI database was the best source of information about project
              location and status. In larger cities, Co-permittee planning department staff do not typically know
              when grading or building permits have been issued to particular projects, as that is handled by a
              different department, so it is difficult to track that information on the reporting tables.
              Sue stated that she could accept this, although she needed to check with her managers. She added
              that she was flexible on format (e.g., two reporting tables versus one), liked San Jose’s city map
              with project locations, and would prefer to receive Group 1 and 2 project information in an
              electronic format.
                   Program staff will respond by June 3 to Water Board staff comments on the Annual Report
                   with a proposal on how SCVURPPP will complete FY 04/05 Group 1 and 2 project
                   information tables, based on today’s discussion.
                   Program staff will provide specific guidance by June 24, 2005 to assist Co-permittees in
                   making their reports more consistent for the FY 04-05 Annual Report.

         o    Treatment BMP O&M Verification Reporting - John Fusco, Program staff, explained how
              SCVURPPP’s proposed reporting format would parallel the approach for industrial inspection
              program reporting. He distributed a table comparing report requirements for the two inspection
              types. Treatment BMPs would be categorized into types, (e.g., detention basin, vegetated swale),
              as would the observed inspection results (e.g., vegetation maintenance needed, trash
              accumulation observed). Each Co-permittee would establish priorities and frequencies for
              inspection of treatment BMPs based on existing Program guidance. Agencies would perform
              detailed data collection in-house and SCVURPPP annual reporting would summarize that data
              according to the established categories for treatment BMPs and observed inspection results.
              Annual reporting would be limited to the subset of treatment BMPs inspected that fiscal year and
              would include an evaluation of observed inspection results.
              A major benefit of the proposal, according to Anastazia Aziz (San Jose), is that agencies would
              be encouraged to look at the big picture and to recognize which treatment BMP types were being
              used and which were being effectively maintained. Kristy McCumby Hyland (Sunnyvale) urged
              the Water Board to make a decision soon on the reporting format so that cities would have
              sufficient time to develop databases and programmatic structures necessary for tracking and
              reporting inspection activities.


F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\C3PO AHTG min 5-23-05 final1.doc                                                       2
              Sue Ma distributed a handout of her interpretation of the permit reporting requirements including
              a description of enforcement actions. She said that Water Board staff will be looking for
              evidence that Co-permitee inspection and enforcement activity is adequate to compel compliance
              and that they did not want to be inundated with inspection details. She requested that the
              Program consider including enforcement actions in the BMP O&M Reporting.
                   Program and Co-permittee staff will continue work on the BMP O&M inspection form and
                   reporting approach.


    •    Roundtable Discussion of C.3. Implementation – Trish Duarte (Los Gatos) asked whether C.3
         requirements would be applicable to a single residential home that will be built on a lot that was part
         of a larger property a developer subdivided and built public improvements on. If the individual home
         is subject to C.3 requirements, how should the requirements be administered? Should the eventual
         homebuilder/owner of the individual lot be made responsible via a restriction to the deed or since a
         significant passage of time could elapse before any homes are actually built, should the developer be
         made responsible earlier in the process and, if yes, how?
              This item was tabled for discussion as a stand-alone agenda item at the next meeting.
The next meeting of the C3PO AHTG will be held July 25, 2005, 1:30 – 3:00pm at Cupertino City Hall,
Conference Room C.




F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\C3PO AHTG min 5-23-05 final1.doc                                                    3
Santa Clara Valley
                                                           Date/Time: May 11, 2005, 10-12 pm.
Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention Program                               Place: Water Board, 1515 Clay Street, Oakland,
                                                           Room 1503

                                                           Who Attended: Geoff Brosseau (BASMAA),
                                                           Sarah Pratt (San Mateo), Gina Purin
                                                           (Marin), Samantha Calamari (Alameda), Bonnie
External Meeting Summary                                   Lowe (CCCSD), Bart Brandenburg (IPM
                                                           Consultant), Rosemary Lombard (Palo Alto),
Regional IPM Work Group                                    Vishakha Atre (SCVURPPP)




Key Issues Discussed:

•   Healthy Home and Garden IPM Video – Gina informed the group that the VHS and DVD
    versions of this video have been mailed to the agencies who ordered them. She also informed the
    group about upcoming publications and asked them to let her know if they are interested in
    participating in any print runs. The publications are:
    −   Bay Friendly Landscaping Guidelines
    −   Garden Pests and Garden Guests (Marin) booklet
    −   The Healthy Home and Garden schools activity book.


•   Structural Pest Control Board advertising regulations – Bart informed the group about the
    Structural Pest Control Board (SPCB) regulation (§1999.5) False and Misleading Advertising.
    This regulation, which became effective November 23, 2001, came about as a result of the
    CALPIRG Report "Toxic Fraud, Deceptive Advertising by Pest Control Companies in
    California". This regulation prohibits PCOs from using terms like “relatively non-toxic”,
    “pollution approved”, “environmentally aware”, “environmentally sensitive”, “environmentally
    preferable”, “environmentally benign” etc., for advertising purposes. He said that the
    Coordinating Committee for the Making IPM Mainstream project has identified this regulation
    as a deterrent for getting PCOs certified in IPM techniques as they are not able to advertise their
    certification to gain more business. Members of the Making IPM Mainstream project are
    considering working with the SPCB to revise the language and are looking for interested parties
    to support this effort. There are sensitivities with doing so as the Pest Control Operators of
    California (PCOC) are not supportive of changing the regulations and it’s not likely that the
    SPCB is either. However, the Regional Water Board and DPR have agreed to raise the issue
    with the SPCB. Their next meeting is July 15. The group agreed that Bart should work with the
    members of the Making IPM Mainstream project to develop a specific problem statement that
    can be used to broach the subject in other venues and with other agencies.




F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\regIPM 5-11 -05 summ.DOC
•   Media Pitch – Geoff updated the group on his discussion with Julia Fishman (consultant for the
    Media Relations Campaign). He said that the BASMAA Media Relations committee will
    develop a pitch that focuses on the Statewide expansion of the program and the OWOW website
    with emphasis on the “Ask the expert” section.
•   Bay Area regional account funding options – Geoff informed the group that as a result of some
    conservative funding decisions over the last two years (to make sure there was enough funding
    for the customer survey and expansion to all OSH stores), funds in the Bay Area regional
    account for the program have accumulated into an amount significant enough to provide an
    opportunity to consider some additional expenditures this year. Committee members discussed
    this and came up with the following options:

    −  Translating remaining English-only fact sheets into Spanish (6 sheets)
    −  Developing a new fungicide fact sheet
    −  Developing fact sheets on rodents, termites, less-toxic tips
    −  Advertising
    −  Funding toward OWOW website after the Prop. 13 grant runs out in December
    −  Support for tabling events
    −  Paying for trainers
    −  Pesticide distributors work
Geoff will develop a list of options for review by the group.
•   Santa Clara County Vector Control District’s Mosquito fact sheet – Rosemary informed the
    group that at a recent community event, she came across a flyer being distributed by the SCC
    VCD. This flyer titled "Mosquito Control Products" lists a number of sprays that residents can
    use for controlling mosquitoes. Seven out of nine sprays listed contain active ingredients that are
    pyrethroids. The VCD is planning to distribute this list due to the threat of West Nile Virus in
    Santa Clara County. The group discussed this and agreed that a specific list of
    changes/recommendations to the fact sheet should be developed for consideration by the Vector
    Control Districe. Geoff will discuss the fact sheet with Tanya and develop specific verbiage.
•   Next Meeting – Wednesday, June 8, 2005.




F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\regIPM 5-11 -05 summ.DOC                                               2
                                                       Date/Time: May 25, 2005; 10:00 – 12:00 pm
Santa Clara Valley
Urban Runoff                                           Place: Regional Water Quality Control
                                                       Board, 1515 Clay Street, Oakland, Room
Pollution Prevention Program                           1503.

External Meeting Summary                               Who Attended: Jackie Kepke, Project
                                                       Manager; Chase Roberts, O’Rorke P.R.; Gayle
BASMAA/BACWA Media Relations                           Tupper, EBMUD, Julie Weiss, City of Palo Alto
Committee                                              RWQ, Bonnie Lowe, CCCSD; Vishakha Atre,
                                                       (SCVURPPP)



Key Issues Discussed:

Sink/HHW Media Pitch
Jackie reported that O’Rorke conducted the sink/HHW pitch in April. The pitch resulted in
following coverage:
        Fairfield Daily Republic 5/8/2005
        San Jose Mercury News (hard copy) 4/29/2005
        San Jose Mercury News website
        KPIX TV show “Beyond the Headlines”
        KPIX TV website

Meteorologist Messages
Chase informed the Committee that O’Rorke has sent the final “water pollution alerts” messages
to meteorologists and is following up on them. However, none of the meteorologists have used
them yet. This could be because the messages were sent to them late in the rainy season. The
Committee recommended that O’Rorke revisit this pitch next fiscal year and follow up with
meteorologists early in the year.


IPM Conference Pitch
Jackie informed the Committee that the Press Advisory for the June 14th Regional IPM
Conference is being revised based on comments received. It will be sent out to Committee
members for final review next week. Spokespeople have been identified, including a local PCO
who uses IPM techniques. A press release will be developed and Chase will attend the meeting
to hand out release, match spokespeople with reporters, etc. She will also e-mail the press release
to all media contacts.

New Development Pitch
The Committee recommended that Jackie contact the BASMAA New Development Committee
to find out if there are any new regulations that would drive coverage for this pitch.



Media Mailers


F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\5-25-05 Minutes.doc    1
Chase reported that as part of the Work Plan, O’Rorke has been periodically sending out bios of
spokespeople to media outlets.

Upcoming Possible Pitches
Jackie informed the Committee that the car washing PSAs will be sent out for review soon.
These were developed and used a few years ago. They will be recirculated to make sure that
everyone is okay with using them.

FY 05-06 Work Plan Brainstorm
Committee members developed the following list of ideas for FY 05-06 pitches:

    Coordination with BASMAA ad campaign
    Trash (conference in Fall on plastics with good info)
    Work with CEP on TMDLs for mercury, trash and pesticides in urban creeks (September)
    FOG (pitch around Thanksgiving)
    Joint winter pitch w/BAAQMD
    New development (if new regulations exist or are coming)
    Pesticides
    Mercury – Either use existing PSAs or develop a pitch around the February 2006 regulation
    date (this regulation will prohibit residents from disposing their used fluorescent lamps in
    trash).
    Respond to breaking news
    Pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors, personal care products (xenobiotics)
    Tree Roots
    Copper (tie in with development)
    Legacy pollutants/toxics
    OWOW (to foreign language media)

Future Work Plan Discussion
The committee will hold a follow up conference call to prioritize the list of pitches and finalize
work plan elements. This call is scheduled for Monday June 20 at 10am. Call-in numbers are
the same as for previous meetings: (877) 540-9892; code: 390493

Next Meeting
The next Regional MR Committee meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 27, 2005 at the
RWQCB, Meeting Room 1503. The regular toll-free conference call number will be available
for those who prefer to dial-in.




F:\SC\SC53\MC\0605\Handout\5-25-05 Minutes.doc   2
    June 9, 2005

    Mr. Bruce Wolfe
    California Regional Water Quality Control San Francisco Bay Region
    1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400
    Oakland, CA 94612


    Subject: Investigation and Development of Regional Policy / Guidance on
             Diversions of Wet Weather Urban Runoff to the Sanitary Sewer

    Dear Bruce:

    This letter is written in the spirit of moving forward, if appropriate, to investigate
    the feasibility (including water quality benefits) of diverting urban runoff to
    existing sanitary sewer systems and POTW facilities. While we embrace the
    philosophy within our existing Bay Area urban runoff programs that the best
    long-term solution is to control pollution at the source, there may be
    circumstances under which diverting urban runoff to sanitary sewers and
    ultimately to a POTW is appropriate.

    As you are aware, a number of cities in Southern California have installed “dry
    weather diversion” structures to help minimize certain dry weather flows from
    reaching beaches and to lessen public health concerns associated with the
    presence of pathogenic organisms. It is our understanding that these structures
    are bypassed during wet weather and that some people believe that this practice
    may discourage source control efforts. We understand that both the USEPA and
    the State Water Board are currently investigating the results of those dry weather
    diversion projects. We look forward to seeing their results and where appropriate
    investigating the application of the results within the Bay Area.

    We understand that your staff has been meeting with staff from a few selected
    POTWs and stormwater programs to discuss the possibility of diverting wet
    weather (e.g., first flush1) urban runoff flows to the sanitary sewer system. While
    we believe that this subject merits additional investigation, we believe that such
    an investigation needs to be done on a regional basis.




1
    As USEPA has stated, the existence of first flush should not be assumed in all cases, that the
    phenomenon has not been observed in some catchments that have undergone intensive
    monitoring, and that the existence of a first flush is critical to the design of stormwater pollution
    controls. Further, review of the literature indicates that there is no one consistent definition of the
    term. Published research conducted by the SCVURPPP is consistent with USEPA findings
    (Soller, J.; Stephenson, J.; Olivieri, K.; Downing, J.; and A. Olivieri. "Evaluation of seasonal scale
    first flush pollutant loading and implications for urban runoff management" Journal of
    Environmental Management, May 2005 (see journal website - in press).
We would like to discuss the possibility of working with you and your staff as well as members
from BACWA to investigate the key concepts and considerations needed to assess the benefits
and costs of wet weather diversions. We believe that a regional policy / guidance document
could be a collaborative product from this endeavor and would significantly assist with the
understanding and furthering of the potential concept. In addition, we believe that this type of
joint investigation is consistent with the overall intent of the Regional Water Board’s Mercury
TMDL Basin Plan amendment.

We would like to discuss the feasibility of the above approach with you at your upcoming
meeting with the BASMAA Executive Board.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 925-313-2373 or Geoff Brosseau at
650-365-8620.

Sincerely,




Donald P. Freitas, Chair

cc: Michele Plá, BACWA
    BASMAA Executive Board

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:12/24/2012
language:Unknown
pages:70