01 Staff Report - Land Use Near StreamsMEETING DATE:2/20/07
ITEM NO:I
CONSENT
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE:February 14,2007
TO:MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM:DEBRA J.FIGONE,TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT:GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS
RECOMMENDATION:
1.Adopt a Resolution implementing the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams
(Attachment 1).
If the Council decides that changes should be made to the resolution,it may:
1.Remand the project to the Planning Commission with direction about the required changes;
or
2.Continue the project to a date certain and provide specific direction to staff about the required
changes.
BACKGROUND:
The Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (G&S)were developed by the Santa
Clara County Water Resources Protection Collaborative (Collaborative),which was established
in 2002.The Collaborative consists of representatives from 15 cities (including the Town of Los
Gatos),the County of Santa Clara,the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)and other
interested community,business and environmental groups.The G&S contains the requirements
and guidance for development adjacent to streams.
On August 15,2005,the Town adopted a resolution agreeing to implement the Guidelines and
Standards.The G&S and an associated streamside protection ordinance were adopted by the
SCVWD Board of Directors an ordinance on October 24,2006.The ordinance implements the
G&S and repeals the SCVWD permitting authority for development adjacent to creeks,and
replaces it with permit authority that applies only to land held by the SCVWD in fee or
easement.With adoption of the ordinance,local jurisdictions will assume the permitting
authority for development adjacent to creeks.A deadline of February 28,2007 has been set for
the cities and the County to adopt the Guidelines.
PREPARED BY:BUD N.LORTZ,~~
Director of Community Development
Reviewed by:Assistant Town Manager -::5&-t""-Town Attorney
__Clerk Administrator ~(Z..J:;'inance ommunity Development
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams
February 14,2007
DISCUSSION:
1.Project Summary
The G&S contain setback and other standards pertaining to development adjacent to creeks.The
provisions apply to all properties abutting a creek except ministerial projects in single family
zones,which are recommended to be exempt from the G&S.The SCVWD will continue to
review projects,if requested by local jurisdiction,which staff intends to do.
All improvements (except in R-l zones)are to be located outside a slope stability protection
area,which is the greater of20 feet inward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio
of2:1 (horizontal:vertical)inward from the toe of bank.For single family homes in R-l zones,
the setback is 20 to 25 feet adjacent to natural stream channels that are 10 feet deep or less,
otherwise the setback is based on the 2:1 slope stability protection area discussed above.
Exceptions may be granted where a slope stability analysis is provided and maintenance or repair
of the stream will be provided.Based on environmental conditions that are assessed during
project review and/or environmental review,greater setbacks than those mentioned above may
be required.
The Collaborative recommends that the following projects be exempt from the G&S:
•Wood fences less than six feet tall
•Grading less than three cubic yards
•Accessory structures less than 120 square feet
•Decks less than 30-inches above grade are exempt from the G&S.
Projects such as these generally do not require permits and are minor so they do not impact
steams and creeks.These uses may be allowed in the slope stability area,but may not encroach
beyond or overhang the top of bank.
The Collaborative allows jurisdictions to exempt existing single-family parcels which contain
10,000 square feet or less.Staff recommends a modification to apply the G&S to all projects on
single-family parcels,regardless of lot size,that require discretionary review.Because most
projects in Town require some type of discretionary review (which includes minor residential
projects,and projects approved by DRC,Planning Commission and City Council),staffs
recommendation will apply the G&S more broadly than the approach suggested by the
Collaborative and will be simpler to implement.The only type of projects that would not be
subject to the G&S are ministerial projects in single family zones.The exemption will essentially
only apply to single-story additions that to do not require a grading permit and two-story
additions less than 100 square feet that only require a building permit for approval.The
SCVWD recognizes that each community will implement the G&S differently based on their
unique permitting processes.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams
February 14,2007
2.Planning Commission
a.Commission Comments
The Commission reviewed the G&S at their meeting of January 10,2007.Commissioner
Bourgeois expressed concern that 20 to 25 foot setbacks discussed in the G&S would be
taken by applicants as the maximum required,when in fact a greater setback may be
necessary.Staff commented that the G&S state the 20 to 25 foot setback is the minimum
setback and the actual setback is based on a 2 to I slope stability protection and also on
environmental constraints of the specific project site.Additionally,staff will include a
statement on handouts that are being developed for properties near streams,that informs
applicants and homeowners that the setbacks in the G&S are minimums and greater
setbacks may be required through the development review process.
Commissioners Bourgeois and Sayoc also mentioned they had technical comments that
they would forward separately to staff.The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that
the Town Council adopt a Resolution implementing the G&S.The recommendation
included the technical comments from Commissioners Bourgeois and Sayoc.
b.Commissioners Bourgeois and Sayoc Comments
The comments from Commissioners Bourgeois and Sayoc's comments are summarized
below along with staff's response.The comments are also attached.
•They express the concern that applicants will view the setbacks in the G&S as the
maximum required.As discussed above,staff will address this concern and make it
clear the setbacks discussed in the G&S are minimums and greater setbacks may be
required based on site conditions.
•It is suggested that the Town consider adopting a riparian corridor policy and
reference a City ofSan Jose policy that requires a 100-foot setback and then outlines
exceptions to reduce the setback.Consideration of a riparian corridor policy is best
evaluated as part of the General Plan Update.As previously discussed,the Town is
under a deadline to adopt the G&S because the SCVWD has relinquished their
permitting authority beginning March 1,2007.
•There is a concern about exempting wood fences adjacent to creeks and suggests
considering fencing standards similar to those in the Hillside Development Standards
and Guidelines (HDS&G).Regulating wood fences adjacent to creeks would be
difficult to administer.Unless included as part of a discretionary application,fences
six feet tall or less do not require a permit and staff would have no way of knowing
when one is built.It should be noted that fencing in hillside areas is encouraged only
in areas necessary for the protection landscaping,security,or play areas.Solid
PAGE 4
MA YOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams
February 15,2007
fencing is discouraged unless needed for privacy and fencing is not allowed in areas
that would impede the movement of wildlife.
•How will the plan be implemented and what type offollow-up will occur to determine
if the G&S are meeting their purpose and goals?Applications will continue to be
routed to SCVWD for comment.However,the Town,not SCVWD,will issue
permits for work adjacent to streams.This will streamline the process for applicants.
In addition to review by SCVWD,staff will evaluate potential impacts and may
require site specific studies to determine the top of bank and assess if the project will
have any impact and if mitigation measures are necessary.Any necessary mitigation
measures will be included in the conditions of project approval.
The Collaborative that prepared the G&S will remain intact and will meet to
determine if the G&S are accomplishing their desired goals and if any amendments
are necessary.The Town cannot modify the language in the G&S,but Staff can
recommend changes when the Collaborative reviews the G&S.
•Concern that the G&S allow structures in the slope stability area subject only to a
geotechnical report with no further studies or mitigation measures.Appendix B of
the G&S discusses additional efforts that may be necessary to protect riparian
corridors.It states additional measures,such as on site biotic studies may be
necessary by a qualified expert to determine if mitigation measures are necessary.
This is consistent with staff's intended approach to implement the G&S.Staff has
included a statement in the Resolution to clarify this requirement to applicants.
•ModifY the language on page 3.13,VB.4 to require rather than consider protective
measures in source water protection zones and sensitive areas of reservoir
watersheds.While there are no reservoirs within Town boundaries,this issue is
further discussed in Appendix B.Any grading in these areas must be approved by the
SCVWD,who will require any necessary mitigation measures.They require erosion
and sediment control measures to protect reservoirs from construction impacts.
•ModifY the language on page 3.15,VII.B to require rather than recommend the
restoration of natural stream processes.Restoring streams/creeks is not always
possible,for example some streams are in culverts under streets and cannot be
restored.Staff will work to restore streams when possible.
•ModifY the language on page 3.18,XIII.A2 to prohibit instead of should prohibit new
high risk activities in well head protection areas as designated on District GIS maps.
Active wells are required to be shown on plans and must be destroyed or maintained
in accordance with SCVWD standards.SCVWD,not Town staff will be responsible
for well head protection.Projects in Town that had well heads were destroyed in
accordance with direction from the SCVWD.
PAGES
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams
Februmy 15,2007
CONCLUSION:
The G&S provide clarity for applicants and will lead to more consistency when reviewing
projects adjacent to streams.It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution
(Exhibit A),applying the G&S to projects in Town adjacent to streams,except that ministerial
projects in single family zones would be exempt from the provisions.The SCVWD is
relinquishing their permitting authority as of February 28,2007 and the Town is encouraged to
adopt procedures to implement the G&S by that date.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Adoption of the G&S is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15307 of the State
Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town.This exemption applies to actions by
regulatory agencies for protection of natural resources where the regulatory process involves
procedures for protection of the environment.The G&S establish procedures that will help
protect streams.Future development adjacent to streamside properties would be subject to
environmental review as appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT:
With SCVWD relinquishing their permitting authority for projects adjacent to creeks,additional
staff time will be required to review creekside properties.Staff currently considers impacts to
creeks as part of the review of creek side properties,but relies primarily on the SCVWD for
expertise.To implement the G&S,applicants will need to hire consultants to assist in the
preparation of plans.Staff will need to review any reports and plans in greater detail and this
will result in an unknown amount of additional staff time to review these projects.Staff will
monitor creekside projects and determine if any changes to fees are necessary to recover
additional costs to implement the G&S.
Attachments:
1.Draft Resolution
2.Excerpts from the January 10,2007 Planning Commission meeting (previously submitted)
3.Comments from Commissioners Bourgeois and Sayoc
4.Staff report prepared for the January 10,2007 Planning Commission meeting (without
exhibits,which are included as attachments 1,5,6 and 7)(previously submitted)
5.Chapter 3 Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (previously submitted)
6.Santa Clara County Valley Water District Ordinance
7.Town Council Report dated August 15,2005 supporting the Collaborative
N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\2007\Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams.rptl.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ADOPTING THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION
COLLABORATIVE GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR
STEAMS,DIRECTING THAT SUCH STANDARDS BE INTEGRATED INTO THE
TOWN OF LOS GATOS'PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESS,AND FURTHER
EXMPTING SINGLE-FAMILY PROJECTS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES THAT DO NOT
REQUIRE DISCRESIONARY APPROVAL.
WHEREAS,the Town of Los Gatos participates in the Santa Clara Valley Water
Resources Protection Collaborative along with the Santa Clara Valley Water District,the County
of Santa Clara,and the cities of Santa Clara County;and
WHEREAS,the Town of Los Gatos joins the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources
Protection Collaborative and others in endorsing the water and watershed resource protection
goals of flood management,drinking water quality and quantity,surface and groundwater quality
and quantity,and habitat protection and enhancement;and
WHEREAS,it is recognized that the local control is the key principle for the
implementation of resource protection goals,and that cities and the County are the primary
jurisdictions for land use planning and land use permit regulation;and
WHEREAS,the Town is committed to the development of a consistent,County-
wide approach to streamside preservation through the implementation of existing policy and the
Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams;and
WHEREAS,the Town of Los Gatos understands that once it adopts and implements
the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams,the Santa Clara Valley Water District
will relinquish its development review of streamside properties other than those lands held in fee
or easement by the Santa Clara Valley Water District;and
ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS,the Town of Los Gatos understands that in adopting and implementing
the Guide and Standards for Land Use Near Streams,the Santa Clara Valley Water District will
continue to provide technical assistance to the Town;and
THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED:The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos:
1.Adopts the "Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams"of the Santa Clara
Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative,incorporating future amendments that may
occur from time to time;and
2.Directs that the "Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams"be applied to
future streamside development in the Town of Los Gatos to the extent feasible provided that
single-family homes in residential zones that do not require discretionary approval are exempt
from the provisions in the guidelines;and
3.In order protect riparian corridors,implementation of the G&S may require applicants to
provide an assessment of onsite biotic and riparian conditions by a qualified professional,which
may result in larger setbacks and additional protection measures than those stated in the G&S.
4.Supports continuing participation in the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources
Collaborative on matters pertaining to watershed resource protection.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos,
California,held on the __day of 2007 by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA
ATTEST:
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA
N :\DEV\RESOS\Guidelines and Standards for Streams.ccreso.doc
A P PEA RAN C E S:
4
5
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
LOS Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Assistant Director of
Community Development:
Town Attorney:
Transcribed by:
Joanne Talesfore,Chair
John Bourgeois
Michael Kane
Phil Micciche
Tom O'Donnell
Steve Rice
Marico Sayoc
Randy Tsuda
Orry Korb
vicki L.Blandin
(510)526-6049 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
PRO C E E DIN G S:
CHAIR TALESFORE:Moving along to Item #5,
Guidelines and Standards for land use near streams.The
recommendation that we're being asked to look at will then
be forwarded to the Town Council to adopt the resolution
implementing the Guidelines and Standards for the land use
near streams.This has been the work,for about three or
four years I was told,of the Collaborative,and we are to
provide some comments and recommendations.And before we do
that,Mr.Tsuda,would you like to present this?
RANDY TSUDA:Actually I'm going to have Curtis
Banks present this particular item.I just wanted to
introduce Curtis.He's recently joined the Town about one
month ago.He is basically a contract planner here for up
to one year.He most recently was the City Planner for the
cities of Los Altos and Mountain View.He has about 13 or
14 years of experience,and he's here helping us out while
we finalize our staffing and refill Nguyen's position.
:b
-f
~o:x:~~
-f
N
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1110/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
23
24
25
CURTIS BANKS:Thank you,Chair Talesfore,
Members of the Commission.I just wanted to provide some
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
background on why these guidelines are before you this
evening.
Over the last several years the Santa Clara
County Water District has been working with the County and
the local jurisdictions within the County to develop some
standards for land uses near streams.The purpose was to
develop some clear and consistent guidance for property
owners and developers of properties near streams,to
clarify the permit process-I think it's somewhat unclear to
people exactly what they need to do to receive approvals-
and then also to develop a clear set of standards,so
people know upfront what the standards are if they're
developing near a stream or waterway,and those standards
are in chapter three;that's really I'd say the crux of the
guidelines,and we've included that chapter in your Staff
Report.The guidelines are also on the City Web site,the
full text as well the CD that was given to you.
The intent to implement the guidelines was
adopted by the City Council by resolution in August 2005,
and at the same time the County and the other cities in
Santa Clara County adopted similar motions,so at this
point Staff is coming to you with provisions to implement
the guidelines.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
4
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
To give you a sense of the current practice,
currently if a property within 50'of the top of bank of a
stream is being developed or redeveloped,that application
is forwarded to the Water District for their comment and
they have to provide an approval of the project.
With adoption of these guidelines,this process
is going to be changing.Actually the Water District has
adopted the guidelines and also an ordinance that gives up
their permitting authority for properties near streams,
unless they own the property,own the stream area,or have
an easement.So they will be relinquishing that authority,
turning it over to the cities,but actually in many senses
the process will remain similar as the Water District will
continue to provide guidance to cities,so the Town will
continue to forward projects to the District early in the
process to get their recommendations,so they can be
incorporated as appropriate into the project approval.
As far as the type of projects,most projects
that come before the Town would be subject to the
guidelines.There are some exceptions for minor projects
such as small accessory structures,fences,and also
ministerial projects,which would include primarily single-
story homes if they don't require a grading permit.If they
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
4
2
require a grading permit,then it would go through the same
process and be subject to these standards.
AS I mentioned,the Water District has adopted
their ordinance relinquishing their authority beginning in
March,so coming up in just over a month.So now the Town
must act on implementation of the Guidelines,and Staff has
recommended that the Town adopt the Guidelines by
resolution,and that reasoning is twofold:The Town will be
So with that,I could answer any questions you
may have.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Do we have any questions of Mr.
Banks?Commissioner Bourgeois.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Actually I have quite a
few questions.It's a large document and it has a lot of
implications for something that our General Plan says we
hold in high value,which are our creeks.
First of all,kind of on the Staffing end;is this
10
11
implementing the Guidelines consistent with the policies
contained in them,but it also provides the Town with some
10
11
additional work for our staff,since the burden is being
passed from the Water District to us?
12 flexibility to utilize the Guidelines consistent with the 12
RANDY TSUDA:The way the Staff has proposed to
13 Igoals and policies of the town,so it does provide some
14 I flexibility.It's recognized by the Water District when
13
14
implement this is that it would apply to any discretionary
permit,that is,any permit that comes through the Town's
15 I these were developed that each jurisdiction would adopt
24 Icontinue to refer it out to the Water District,but the
23 I consistency with the guideline standards,but we will still
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
them in a way consistent with that jurisdiction's policies,
so each of the County and each of the local jurisdictions
are adopting them somewhat differently to fit their needs.
It is a time sensitive item in that we do need to
forward this to the Town Council so we can implement this
prior to the March timeframe,and tonight it's mentioned
it's recommended that you forward a recommendation to the
Town Council to adopt a resolution approving the
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
planning review process.
In that situation it's actually fairly similar to
the current process.Under the current process we have
agreed with the District to participate in their early
consultation process.What that means is that essentially
two weeks after the application is taken in,we refer the
project out to the Water District for their comment.
In this case,now that we have Guidelines and
Standards,number one,we will review the project for
25
guidelines.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
Water District has stated they will no longer be the final
approval authority on these.
So from a workload standpoint,it's very similar
to our current process.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Thank you.I guess that
aside,one of my larger concerns is throwing hard numbers
out there.Having that 25'number,I'm concerned people are
going to start to build to that,because I know in this town
we have language in our Hillside Standards,we have language
in the General Plan,about riparian setbacks.I thought we
10
had something vague in the ordinance about setbacks on
11
creeks,and I looked for it and I couldn't find it,so it
12
might not be there.But I know in the General Plan and
13
Hillside Standards we have it.
minimum,but it doesn't explicitly say that.It could be
greater than that.So that's probably my chief concern.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioner Bourgeois,would
that be a recommendation?
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Well I'd like to hear
Staff's opinion and maybe I'm the only commissioner who is
concerned about this,so it's a moot point,but I would like
to hear other people's opinions.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,fine.Thank you.
RANDY TSUDA:As the Commissioner stated,it is a
10
minimum.As projects come through the environmental review
11
process,and the biologic assessment,and those types of
12
mechanisms,greater setbacks are often required.That
13
mechanism still exists.This doesn't change the overall
14
15
16
17
I work a lot with the Water District and I know
what that 25'is about.It's about access for stream
maintenance,for heavy equipment,and it's not necessarily
about protecting habitat or wildlife corridors,or things
14
15
16
17
environmental quality review process,so this is to be used
as a minimum set of standards,then you have the
environmental review process and biologic assessment,and
that in fact may require a greater setback from top of bank.
18 I that our General Plan says we think are important.And so 18 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:May I suggest that wording
19 II'm just really concerned about people building to that 25',
20 Ibecause I can name specific projects in town when greater
19 Ibe put in that you stated,that is minimum,but a greater
20 I setback may be required?
21 I than 25'setbacks have been recommended.21 RANDY TSUDA:What I would suggest is that we
22
23
24
25
I don't know how to insert it into the process,
but I think somewhere we need to say that it could be
greater than 25'.It says clearly that it's a 20'-25'
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
22
23
24
25
actually would add it to the resolution,reinforcing the
fact that the CEQA process still is in existence and that
may require greater protection than these minimum standards.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay.Commissioner Sayoc.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
COMMISSIONER SAYOC:Actually a lot of my comments
are along the lines with Commissioner Bourgeois'.
First of all I wanted to commend the Staff for
this report.It's very thorough and very well written,and I
think any time you work on a collaborative project,
especially regionally,I understand that there are many
interests that you need to take into account,and so I was
pleased to read this and to have such a document in place.I
think it goes to show the importance we place on natural
resources.
10
That being said,and again I'm coming at the tail
11
end of this,what struck me is that there could be language
12
to somewhat strengthen it so that there's more emphasis
13
placed on prevention of degradation to riparian habitat
wide series of standards that would apply regardless of
jurisdiction.
So while there's nothing in the document that
prohibits local jurisdictions from making changes,and in
fact the Collaborative acknowledged that each jurisdiction
is going to implement it in a slightly different manner,the
Collaborative generally discourages making significant
deviations from the Guidelines.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Yes,Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:Since this only applies
10
to discretionary projects,and since CEQA requires all
11
discretionary projects go through the initial review and the
12
environmental review,and since CEQA requires that if
13
there's any significant adverse impact,you have to either
14
15
rather than the mitigation measures to repair damage that
will be incurred.And I could point to specific instances,
14
15
fully mitigate it or adopt overriding considerations,isn't
this being covered?
16 but similar to what Commissioner Bourgeois said,instead of 16 RANDY TSUDA:Yes,there are categorical
17 stating minimums,is there some way to strengthen it so that 17 exemptions.There is a provision in CEQA that says despite a
18 Iwe can state what our preferred preferences are?Because
19 lonce you state minimums,people will just strive for those
20 Iminimums instead of trying to achieve better than.
18 Icategorical exemption,if it comes to the jurisdiction's
19 lattention that there may be a potential environmental
20 I impact,that that exemption cannot be used and it must go
21 RANDY TSUDA:Well there's certainly a way to do 21 Ithrough that environmental review process.So the short
22 that,and that would be to do the analysis and consider 22 answer is yes,the CEQA process still would apply.
23 local changes to specific standards in the document.One of 23 CHAIR TALESFORE:I have other questions.
24
25
the purposes behind the Collaborative was to adopt a region
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
24
25
Commissioner Kane,and then Commissioner Bourgeois,or did
you have something to tap onto that?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
10
5
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Yeah,I kind of wanted to
respond to that too,because I believe that if there are
guidelines in place,those can then be used as a
significance criteria,and so if you have something in
writing that says minimum of 25',CEQA documents do use
those standards as the significance criteria,so if they're
not encroaching within 25',they could say boom,not an
issue under CEQA.SO I just wanted to be clear that we have
something in the resolution to warn applicants ahead of
are going to have to hire a biologist to review that and
determine the proper setback,and again with that
consultation from the Water District,so it provides some
guidance going in,so people have some sense,and I think
your point is well taken,to provide the warning that it may
need to be greater,but I also think some of those
protections are in here as well.
RANDY TSUDA:Just one other comment on that.In
these Guidelines and Standards it makes it clear that
10
time.
CURTIS BANKS:If I could add onto that a little
10
they're discouraging the use of the Guidelines and Standards
as an 'out"to the CEQA process.Some of the things that
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
bit as well.When projects are reviewed,Staff also utilizes
the General Plan,goals and policies for protection of
streams,so I think that's well taken.
And also I think the way these Guidelines have
been adopted,in some cases they put numbers to provide some
guidance.I think one of the problems you have right now and
a frustration applicants have is they have no idea what he
setback is going in,so they're trying to put together a
proposal for an addition to a house or a commercial
building,but have no sense of what type of setback they
need,so these Guidelines at least provide a starting point.
Also you have to look at it provides some hard
numbers in some cases,but it also is a setback from the top
of the creek,top of bank,and that's isn't always a simple
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
you'll see in the Guidelines and Standards is as
implementation measure the towns and cities should
strengthen the CEQA checklist,such that you'd come up with
thresholds of significance for streamside impacts,for
impacts to water quality in these creek beds and creek
channels,things like that.It's mentioned in several places
that in addition to these guidelines and standards,there
should be supplemental CEQA guidance and checklists to
address impacts relative to temperature and water quality
for,in this case from what I'm reading,aquatic life.So
it's pretty clear that they don't want this to be used as
cart blanche to go to the minimum and therefore make that
finding that automatically you do not have an environmental
impact.
25
determination,so I think in a lot of cases applicants still
25
CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you.Commissioner Kane.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
11
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
12
COMMISSIONER KANE:It would appear that we have RANDY TSUDA:And one last comment.I know we do
two Commission members who have an environmental/scientific
background,either educational and/or experience.I don't.
4 lAnd so as Denzel Washington once said,"Talk to me like I'm
have two commissioners that do have an extensive background
in these documents,even after taking an action on
recommending this document tonight,if you have specific
5 a six-year-old."Is there anything in this very extensive
report that reduces or negatively impacts anything we
already have in terms of protection and guidelines of that
nature?
5
7
comments,we'd love to hear what those comments are,and
those can be incorporated into the Staff Report to the
Council as feedback from a technical perspective from these
two commissioners.
RANDY TSUDA:It doesn't reduce it.It tries to CHAIR TALESFORE:Well let's identify those two
10
11
12
provide specificity and guidance,but it does not reduce,
and it doesn't override General Plan standards,doesn't
override the Zoning Code.
COMMISSIONER KANE:That was my second question:
10
11
12
commissioners now.That would be Commissioner Sayoc and
Commissioner Bourgeois.Is that something that you might
like to present to the Staff?When would this corne to
Council?
13
Does it supercede anything we have?We had a case on a
13
RANDY TSUDA:It will go in about a month.
14 medical building at the bottom of a swale on Blossom Hill 14 CHAIR TALESFORE:In about a month.
15 between university and Roberts Road,and that was in a 15 COMMISSIONER SAYOC:Certainly.
16 riparian district,and I thought our setback was larger than 16 CHAIR TALESFORE:I mean if you felt so compelled.
17 25',and it doesn't matter if I'm right or not.What you're 17 COMMISSIONER SAYOC:No,absolutely.As I
18 Isaying is if our setback in that zone were 35',we would
19 Istill adhere to 35'in the future?
18 Imentioned,I could do it here,I could do it offline,but
19 I there are specific instances where I think the document
20 RANDY TSUDA:If our Zoning Code setback is that,20 Icould be strengthened so that emphasis would be better
21 lif the biologic assessment comes back and says it needs to 21 Iplaced on prevention rather than mitigation.
22 be 35'or 50',then that's the guidance.22 CHAIR TALESFORE:Now does that mean that we as
23 COMMISSIONER KANE:Because I remember we had to 23 commissioners have to reread that or approve?Okay,thank
24
25
move that line because they weren't at the right number,so
good.That's all protected;I'm fine with it.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
13
24
25
you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
14
RANDY TSUDA:No,the way we would provide it to
Council is these are the technical comments from the two
commissioners.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Perfect.Okay.Commissioner
less than 10,000 square feet.There is a different permit,
MPDES,that states a 10,000 square foot threshold,and so
they took it to be consistent with that.Staff feels for
4 I implementation within the Town it would just apply to
5
7
Bourgeois,the same?Or do you have a comment and a
question?
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:When do you need them by?
CHAIR TALESFORE:This is if you feel so
5 single-family residential lots.
CHAIR TALESFORE:All right,well thank you for
clarifying that.All right,who would like to make the
motion?Commissioner Bourgeois.
compelled.RAY DAVIS:(Inaudible).
RANDY TSUDA:Yeah,it's tentatively scheduled for
10
11
CHAIR TALESFORE:
them in writing.
I do,and I assume they want
10
11
CHAIR TALESFORE:Oh,thank you.Yes.
Commissioner,we will come back to that.Okay,and now let's
close the discussion and I'll open it to the public for
12
13
the February 20"meeting,is that right?So we would need to
sit down with you here in the next two weeks or so.
12
13
comment.I'll need you to fill out a card afterwards.
RAY DAVIS:Yes,I'd like to offer the following
14
15
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:
prepared to make a motion.
Okay.And then I'm 14
15
thoughts.I read the Staff Report this afternoon and what
jumped out at me was the fact that 10,000 square foot lots
16 CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you.I do have one other 16 and under would be excluded from all the regulations.I
17 question myself,believe it or not.I was wondering,the 17 couldn't believe it.Do you know what that means in Los
18 Irationale for exempting residential lots of 10,000 square
19 I feet or less,is that being done?
18 IGatos?There are thousands of lots under 10,000 square foot.
19 IThousands.That's a quarter-acre.R-1-8,8,000 square foot,
20 CURTIS BANKS:Well actually what this 20 Ithat's less than a quarter-acre.R-l-S,that's one-quarter
21
22
23
24
25
recommendation would do would be for ministerial projects,
for single-family residential only,I want to clarify that,
it would be not to include that lot size.That was taken
actually from a different type of permit;it wasn't even
based on some type of impact on lots that are greater or
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
15
21
22
23
24
25
of a quarter-acre.So why are these lots being excluded when
they are far and away the majority of lots on the flat in
the valley where the creeks are?
The creeks run out of the mountains into the
valley,so why would you want to exclude them,because the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
16
whole idea of the process is to protect them?To protect the
riparian right-of-way to begin with,and something none of
you talked about,that setback.I know from my experience in
4 lOrinda,where creeks are a big issue,and you have that
setback,24'-25',to protect the land use owners from
themselves,to keep them from building too close to the
creek,because every time there's a large rainfall,the
creek bed erodes.And over the years the 20'gradually
disappears,and the whole idea is to have a reasonable
setback to preclude any development in that setback to give
10
the owners 25-30 years without any problem.
11
But there are two main goals with a setback:
12
protect the riparian right-of-way and habitat for the
13 animals,the birds and so forth;and for public enjoyment
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:My hearing aid was off
when you were discussing the lots that were under 10,000.
Would you repeat that again?
RANDY TSUDA:In the resolution we're recommending
the Council adopt,it states that this would apply to any
residential property,regardless of lot size,that goes
through the planning process.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:That's what I thought you
said.Okay.
RAY DAVIS:What about existing lots?
10
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:You want to quantify that
11
one?
12
RANDY TSUDA:It applies to any property that
13
would go though the planning process.
14 and public resource,quality of life,for all of us.Then 14 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Okay.Thank you.
15 you go to the individual homeowner.15 CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you.
16 So in Orinda,nobody built close to the creek.16 RAY DAVIS:But not ministerial.
17 Nobody.It was a fight,huge,right off the bat.I'm 17 CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you,Mr.Davis.Mr.Davis,
18 Idisappointed that the Staff recommends that you exclude lots
19 110,000 square foot and under because of the massive hard
18 I thank you.
19 RAY DAVIS:The Staff doesn't even (inaudible).
20 Inumbers of those lots in Los Gatos,so I ask you to please 20 CHAIR TALESFORE:Mr.Davis,thank you.Okay,I
21 I think about it.21 Iwould like to entertain a motion.Thank you,Commissioner
22 CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you,Mr.Davis.22 Bourgeois.I close the public hearing.
23
24
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Excuse me,question to
Staff?
23
24
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:I'd like to make a motion
that we forward to Town Council a recommendation to adopt
25
CHAIR TALESFORE:Yes,Commissioner Micciche.
25
the resolution implementing the Guidelines and Standards for
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
17
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
18
land use near streams,with the addition to the resolution
adding language that the CEQA process may indeed result in a
setback greater than 25',and also to consider other
recommendations to be provided in writing in the next two
weeks.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I'll second.
COMMISSIONER KANE:I'll second that.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioner Micciche,I believe
I heard you first.
10
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I got in there.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR TALESFORE:Yeah,you did.You were right
under the wire.Do I have any discussion on this?None.
Seeing none,I'll take the motion now?All those in favor?
Opposed?None.Thank you,and the motion passes 7-0.
(END)
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/10/2007
Item #5,Santa Clara Valley Resources G&S Water Collaborative
19
UU1IJtL1Nt5 ANIJ b1A1Vdt;1-kKua r`,1R LiAt-tw w j6 Ee4mm a6 1vb r%g11w
313. GUIDELINES AND
STANDARDS FOR LAND
USE NEAR STREAMS
1. Riparian Corridor Protection
Applicability of the Following Riparian
Corridor Protection G&S's: The
following guidelines and standards
related to planting and removal of
plants in this section are applicable
in conjunction with a development
proposal where SCVWD/city/county
reviews landscaping plans.
I.A.1 Protection of the Riparian
Zone
Enforce existing City/County/SCVWD
general plans, policies, or ordinances
related to riparian areas, water quality
and source water protection.
I.A.2 Protection of the Riparian
Zone
Develop criteria to determine allowable
uses within riparian corridor and
develop measures to protect existing
riparian areas.
I.A.3. Protection of the Riparian
Zone
Adopt, as appropriate, riparian corridor
buffers consistent with onsite biotic
conditions, which may be determined
by a qualified professional to protect
existing riparian habitat. Sensitive
habitat areas should be identified and
assigned appropriate buffers.
I.A.4 Environmental
and Water Quality
Supplement CEQA guidance and
checklist to include environmental
impacts relative to temperature and
water quality for aquatic life.
I.B. Native Plant Removal
Native riparian vegetation is not
allowed to be removed unless there
is a threat to public health and safety
including an imminent danger of
induced flooding and/or a biologist/
arborist confirms that it will improve
the stream ecology or habitat. If
vegetation is proposed for removal
in conjunction with a development
project., mitigation will be provided
as defined through the CEQA process
and as agreed to by the local agencies
and appropriate regulatory agencies.
I.C. Planting
Non-native species are not allowed
to be planted between top of banks,
or within an existing riparian corridor
unless approved by appropriate state
and federal regulatory agencies.
Non-native invasive species are not
allowed to be planted adjacent to an
existing riparian corridor. Recommend
watershed specific natives for major
development restoration landscaping.
I.C2. Planting of Invasive Species
Encourage removal of and do.not
plant invasive species.
I.C3. Planting Within Tops of
Banks
Planting appropriate vegetation
between top of banks as an
alternative to hardscape bank
protection to promote bank stability,
improve habitat, and provide other
water quality benefits is encouraged
if it does not reduce channel capacity
significantly below design flows.
1.C4. Planting on Levees
No trees may be planted on a levee
unless additional fill is placed against
the levee.
USER, MANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS 3.3
I.C5. Planting Next to
Water Supply Pipelines
Trees must not be planted within
easement or right-of-way of SCVWD
water supply pipelines or the minimum
required by other jurisdictions, as
appropriate.
E.D. Irrigation
Irrigation runoff must not be allowed
to cause erosion. If within outboard
levee slope, irrigation must be bubbler
or drip-type systems, and must be
used for establishment purposes only.
No main lines may be installed in
levees.
I.D2. Irrigation and Planting
Follow efficient water use landscape
ordinance requirements for
drought tolerant plants and water
conservation.
E.E. Pesticide and Herbicide Use
Use of pesticides and delineation of
responsibility for maintenance on
District property or easements shall
be conducted as defined by current
practice.
I.F. Post-Construction Water Quality
Include post construction water quality
mitigation measures in proposed
development conditions.
I.G. Land Uses Next to Riparian
Corridors/Streams:
Avoid locating loading docks, trash
enclosures, chemical storage areas
and stationary noise producing
mechanical equipment next to streams
and riparian corridors.
Refrain from locating new paved
areas, active recreational areas,
agricultural growing areas and grazing
activities within riparian corridors.
E.H. Light
Avoid bright colors and glossy or
glare producing building finishes on
th. SL-
~i vi ripuriuil
an~~.i~res lucing 1.1c au cui
areas. Avoid nighttime lighting in
riparian corridors, direct lighting away
from riparian corridor and maximize
distance of lighting from riparian
corridor.
L1. Monitoring
For projects subject to mitigation/
monitoring requirements, riparian
plantings for mitigation and bank
repair/protection projects will be
monitored to ensure successful
establishment.
I.J. Protection of Fish and Aquatic
Life
Preserve in and near-stream riparian
vegetation whose canopies provide
shade and nutrients for aquatic life.
I.J2. Protection of Fish
and Aquatic Life
Protect/maintain stream characteristics
suitable for fish habitat, including
riffles; pools, gravel beds, stable
undercut banks, overhanging
vegetation & in-stream woody debris
3.4 USER. MANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS
t. U11JCL11Xr-7 AINU J 1P41XiV)<VVa V%Wrt 6^11,16! Wi #b. kVb.f'Saa ros e,Lh mAV%
H. BANK STABILITY/
STREAMBEID CONDITIONS
ll.A Slope Stability Requirements
for New and Major Redevelopment
Background: Slope stability
requirements for watercourses will
be determined based on geomorphic
and hydrologic conditions, the
bank's physical characteristics, such
as composition and height, the
potential for instability or erosion,
other environmental considerations,
structure loading and flood potential
as determined by the applicant's
engineer. Construction activities
proposed .below the top of bank and/
or in the riparian corridor are subject
to review and permit authorization
from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Department of Fish and
Game, and in most cases, the US Army
Corps, of Engineers and their Federal
consulting agencies.
II.B.1 Bank Stability for Structures
Built Near Streams
Establish a bank stability requirement
;f,
' or triggee that applies to construction
of new roads, parking lots, pools, and
structures subject to the UBC. The
bank stability requirement or trigger
e.
should be measured from top of bank
and should be based upon stream
characteristics including protection of
is existing riparian vegetation, natural or
modified streams banks, and condition
of bank.
For all new development and major
redevelopment, the slope stability
I=
trigger will be set to be the greater of:
r
y;
1) 2 to 1 structural slope stability
I' requirement or trigger (This is
measured using a hypothetical
2 horizontal to 1 vertical line
projected from the toe of bank
to a point where it intersects the
adjacent ground.) The protection
area should allow for construction
access and access around the
structure. For banks of larger
Streal5i5, or flit StrBaYYiS t hat ure
deeply incised or have highly
erodable banks, a permitting
agency may need to increase the
protection area or trigger area in
order to protect water quality and
other resources.
2) 20 feet from top of bank or
property line
For construction proposed within the
protection area or trigger area, the
applicant would need to:
(1) conduct a stability analysis by
stream type and demonstrate that
development would not require
introduction of hardscape in order to
maintain active floodplain or active
channel slope
(2) show how maintenance or repair
of the stream could be provided
II.6.2 Bank Stability for Structures
Built Near Streams
Supplement CEQA guidance and
checklist to include stream stability
impacts from and to proposed
development project
USEP, MANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS 3.5 j
H.C. Flood Protection for Structures
Built Near Streams
Structures will meet FEMA
requirements if within a special
flood hazard area. Refer to SCVWD
Watershed Stewardship Plans and
verify with SCVWD the status of
any planned or anticipated flood
protection projects and their right
of way requirements. SCVWD may
request dedication of land rights
for flood protection or maintenance
access in conjunction with new or
redevelopment projects.
For levee sections, recommend 18 to
25 foot building setback from toe of
levee.
EXCEPTION: Exceptions are allowed
as consistent with City or County flood
hazard ordinances.
II.D. Slope Stability Requirements
for Single Family Units
The Purpose v~ clope staL.:I:ai, j
The v~t .,wrc
Requirement For Single Family
Units: Structures built near streams
may negatively affect streams and
streamside resources as well as the
structure itself. Some potential issues
include:
1. Adverse effects on streamside
slopes, including effects on
slope stability and erosion,
and related hazards to
structures built on streamside
properties
2. Adverse effects on flood
control facilities and related
infrastructure
3. Adverse effects on local
drainage facilities and related
infrastructure
4. Adverse effects on riparian
corridors and associated
vegetation and related erosion
impacts
5. Adverse effects to streams,
including the effects of down-
slope sedimentation and
altered stream hydrology,
and related impacts to water
quality in streams
b. The structure itself can be
undermined over time as the
streambank erodes due to the
dynamic nature of the stream
resulting in health and safety
hazards
The following Slope Stability
Requirements are intended to serve
3.6 USER MANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS
U
GUlL)LLINk: i ANU iAANL)AKUb 1-UK LANU U,.IC @ tAK 31 KtAavta
as development standards, that when
used, will help enable the location of
structures on streamside properties
u ~iiurii~er .n w iut •a
'voiua or r-nini'mizes
impacts to streams, streamside natural
resources, flood control facilities, local
infrastructure and the structure itself.
Slope Stability Requirements
as a' Geotechnical Trigger' for
Permit Review
If a structure is proposed to be
located closer to the Top of Bank
than indicated by the following Slope
Stability Requirements, this may
serve as a trigger for local permitting
agencies to require site-specific
technical information related to precise
slope conditions. If a property owner
is proposing to place structures closer
to a streamside slope than allowed
by the Slope Stability Requirements,
the permitting agency should require
further study of on-site geotechnical
soil and slope stability conditions. The
purpose of the study is to determine:
1. whether or not the location
of a proposed structure may
threatenbank stability, and
2. whether or not the bank instability
may threaten structures and/or
potentially cause a health and
safety hazard.
For banks of larger streams, or for
streams that are deeply incised or have
highly erodable banks, a permitting
agency may need to require on-site
geotechnical analyses even if the Slope
Stability Requirement are met.
USER MANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAP. STPEAMS 3.7
J
li. E. Slope Stability Protection Area for Single-Family Units '
The "Slope Stability Protection Area" is an area between a structure and the stream
in some cases, a range of numbers is indicated. The assumption is that eoc h local
jurisdiction will select one of the numbers based on their existing priorities, permitting
processes, and on-site conditions. It is also assumed that the channel depth of most
streams in urban Santa Clara County is 10 feet deep or less. For streams, deeper
than 10 feet, there should be a 2 to 1 protection area as measured from the toe of
the bank.
Stability Protection Area
Stream with Little Structurally 3 Ephemeral
or No Hardening Engineered System Stream
Size of Protection
Area (as measured
25 - 20 ft.
15 ft.
10 - 15 ft
from Top of Bank)4
Notes: Potential Additions to the Slope
A. For a large lot (greater than 10,000 sq. ft), add 5 feet.
B. For a large home in which the FAR triggers a discretionary review, work with
applicant to ensure that impacts such as drainage are redirected away from a
stream and pursue opportunities to increase the slope stability protection area
to better protect the stream (and home) from impacts. For example, consider
decreasing the required front yard setback in order to accommodate an
increased rear yard setback/slope stability area.
' Single Family Unit refers to both (a) new single family units on existing lots of record
and (b) new single family remodels/rebuilds as defined by local regulations/policy/ guidelines
z In addition to protecting this area, BMP's should be used that are reflective of Guidelines and
Standards,
for activities adjacent to this areas where discretionary review is used
(i.e redirecting drainage away from the stream and no removal of native riparian plants
3 A "structurally engineered system" is designed to provide slope stability. It may be a concrete-lined
channel (U-frame or trapezoidal) or a stream substantially modified with riprap, gabions, structurally
engineered sacked concrete, etc.
" Area measured for Slope Stability Requirement to be measured based on location of Top of Bank,
whether stream is on or off of property.
3.8 USER /VkANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS
GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS BUR LAND Ubh NhAK ~11{t~lVl~
111. ENCROACHMENTS
BETWEEN THE TOP OF BANK
Related Resource Agency
Permits: In addition to the G&S's
below, any construction activities
proposed below the top of bank
are subject to review and permit
authorization from the Regional
Water Quoli" Control Board,
Colifcrnlo Department of 'F'ish and
Game, and.in most cases, the
U-S Army-Corps of Engineers and
their =ederaI consulting agencies.
-Appli=ants may,choose'to complete
a JARPA (Joint Aquatic P.esource
Permit Application) Fpermits are
i equired from more than one
Resource .Agency.
III.A Overhang Top of Bank
1. Decks, pathways, buildings or
any other structures (excluding
road crossings, outfalls, and bank
protection structures) may not
overhang or encroach beyond or
within the top of bank.
2. When illegal structures are
identified, which cause public health
and safety problems and/or damage
to stream resources, appropriate
jurisdiction should take actions to have
them removed or modified.
111.B1. Design/Construction Related
to Encroachments between the
Top of Bank
The construction of clear span
structures is preferred for new and
replacement bridges. Bridge piers may
be allowed if length of span makes
clear span infeasible as determined by
the local jurisdiction.
111.132. Design/Construction Related
to Encroachments between the
Top of Bank
u Suvlwrc mu5l uc NiuCcit ire ntc
If
active channel due to structural
requirements, feasibility, or otherwise,
a geomorphic, biological impacts, and/
or hydraulic analysis will be required
and will be reviewed by SCVWD and
other state and federal agencies. For
construction of new bridges, loss of
riparian, or aquatic habitat beneath
the bridge should be mitigated and
located as close to the new bridge as
possible.
111.63. Design/Construction Related
to Encroachments between the
Top of Bank
Have footings and pile caps that are
designed based on channel scour
to prevent erosion. The appropriate
foundation depth should be
determined by a licensed engineer and
should be at minimum three -(3) feet
below active channel invert.
If depth of waterway allows, clearance
under the bridge should be a minimum
12 feet for maintenance access
or access to the stream should be
provided from road.
11I.B4. Design/Construction Related
to Encroachments between the
Top of Bank
Structures must not reduce the
active channel or active floodplains'
conveyance area or redirect flow to
the detriment of another bank or
the river bed. Designs in SCVWD
jurisdictional areas must be capable of
conveying 100-year design flow and
meet SCVWD's freeboard requirements
explained in Design Guides.
USER MANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAP. STREAms 3.9
i
EXCEPTION: If structure may reduce
the conveyance area or encroach into
freeboard area, a hydraulic analysis
wiii be required to demonstrate no
increase in erosive velocity or flood
elevations. Hydraulic analysis must
be in HECII or HEC-PAS format (small
rural streams may utilize simpler
hydraulic analysis methods) and must
model debris loading on piers (3 times
the pier width) and include a scour
analysis. Analysis must be acceptable
to SCVWD.
III.B5. Design/Construction Related
to Encroachments between the
Top of Bank
Encroachments in active channels and
active floodplains must provide for fish
passage and not impact aquatic life.
EXCEPTION: Consideration of
exceptions for fisheries impacts must
be coordinated with NMFS, USFWS,
CDFG, RWQCB and would require
biological impacts analysis as well as a
Streambed Alternation Agreement.
III.C. Water Rights Related to
Encroachments between the
Top of Bank
SC'VWD permits required for diversion
of surface water (removal of water from
stream) in areas where District releases
water to stream. Construction-related
water diversions must also conform to
DFG water diversion guidelines, and
are subject to a biological assessment.
EXCEPTION: Stream owners may
have riparian rights to water in stream.
Owners must file statements with State
Water Resources Control Board.
3.10 USER IdANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS
_s U
V../I VCLI IX CJ Fi IN L► aIAIN LFJAEEW~p ®-%JR 6.1-1. 1111111W W.0 h. 1%rmm asai~r~~rcv
IV. EROSION PREVENTION
AND REPAIR
Related Resource Agency
Permits In addition to the G&S's
below, ary activity that may
impact a' watercourse requires
at minimum notification to the
Regional Water Quality Control
Board, California Department of
Fish and Game, and in Most ocises,
the US Army Corps of Engineers
and their Federal consulting
agencies, Applicants may choose
to complete a JARPA (Joint Aquatic
Resource Permit Application)' if
permits are required from more
than one Resource Agency.
N.A. Erosion Repair
[V.A. 1. Root cause of erosion
Where known, the root cause and
extent of any erosion must be
identified, described and reported to
the appropriate agency or agencies
prior to any attempts to repair erosion
site.
W.A. 2. Remediation of erosion
Property owner to remediate source of
erosion if onsite.
W.A. 3. Evaluation of effects of
adjacent properties
All repair project proposals should
include an evaluation for the potential
impacts on both downstream and
upstream banks.
W.A. 4. Evaluation of impacts on
channel dynamics
If erosion protection extends into active
channel, evaluate post construction
erosion potential due to change in
stream dynamics caused by design.
[V.A. 5. Hydraulic analysis
if the repair method reduces stream
cross-section or increases stream
roughness, a hydraulic analysis is
required to demonstrate no increase in
flood elevations.
W.A. 6. Construction on slopes
For construction on slope greater than
5%, require implementation of erosion
and sediment control measures. (See
the "Erosion and Sediment Control
Field Manual" developed by the Water
Quality Control Board.)
W.S. Project Design/Construction
W.B. 1. Use of Soft Erosion Repair
Techniques
Design of erosion protection
must utilize the softest possible
method appropriate for the stream
characteristics; use of hardscape
materials or retaining walls within the
banks of the watercourse should be
avoided.
W.B. 2. Use of Fiardscape/"
Retaining Walls
If hardscape or a retaining wall is to
be used, it must be demonstrated
that (1) all softer methods have
been evaluated, (2) the proposed
method will reduce erosion and -(3)
the proposed method will not cause
erosion or negatively impact proper
stream function in other areas.
W.B. 3. Use of Hardscape/
Retaining Walls
If used, hardscape elements will require
project proponents to mitigate impacts
by planting appropriate native riparian
vegetation onsite or at another suitable
location. Mitigation requirements will
need approval by regulatory agencies.
USER MANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAl3,s 3.11
f
MS. 4. Design of i-iardscape/
Retaining Walls
Design cutoff walls or keys to
anticipate scour depth. Must be
minimum 3 feet deep.
W .B. 5. Design of Channel Repairs
Channel repairs should match
the contour of the upstream and
downstream banks to prevent
constrictions and increased potential
for erosion.
W.B. 6. Design of Channel Repairs
Over-steepened banks should be laid
back to a more stable configuration
whenever possible.
IV.S. 7. Treatment of Bare Slopes
Bare earthen slopes resulting from work
must be treated to minimize erosion and
prevent sediment from entering streams
and other aquatic habitats. See Design
Guide for recommendations for seed
mixes to be used with/without native
plants.
V. GRADING
Related Resource Agency,.
Permits: In addition to the:G&S's r
below, any grading activities
proposec below the top of bank
and/or in the riparian corridor
are subject to review and permit
authorizotion-Regional Water
nuclifv Control Board, California
Deparfrnent of Fish and Game
(i.e. Stream bed Alteration
agreement), and in most cases,
the US Army Corps of Engineers
and their Federal consulting
agencies. Applicants may choose
to complete a JARPA (Join, Aquatic
Resource Permit Application) if
permits are required from more
than one Rcsourcc .41gency.
V.A. Drainage Related to Grading
Grading must address drainage.
Drainage that avoids the need for
outfaiis, or reduces the size ana/or
number or outfolls is encouraged.
V.B. Construction Related to
Grading
Grading adjacent to streams must be
in compliance with NPDES general
permit, where applicable, and must at
a minimum provide for buffer areas
and vegetated swales between the
stream and graded areas.
In compliance with the statewide
General Permit for Construction,
grading activities that disturb one
acre or more of land require the
project proponent to prepare and
have on site a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan.
EXCEPTION: Exceptions are allowed
per each municipality's drainage
ordinance and NPDES permits.
Exceptions from swale and BMP's
are allowed if there are other run-off
controls in place.
V.B.2. Construction Related to
Grading
Recommend that fill-be placed
adjacent to dry side of the levee to
minimize the levee height unless it
causes drainage problems, disturbs
wetlands, creates safety concerns, or
impacts aesthetics of property.
V.13.3. Construction Related to
Grading
Modifications to levees are allowed if
a slope stability analysis is performed
and any structure that provides
support to the levee is designed with
long-term life span (50-1 DO years).
hj
Ij
i 4
3.12 USER. /,/,ANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAP. STREAMS
UUI'UtLINIt b AEst U bIFi.14UAKUD r%JK LA IN LA V.aG cx6meti jEro6,r%m,s
EXCEPTION: Exceptions are allowed
(although discouraged) to cuts in levees
if for a temporary purpose and repair is
compieted by the beginning of October
and a performance bond is used to
assure completion.
V.B.4. Construction Related to
Grading
Grading adjacent to drinking water
reservoirs (Calera, Anderson,
Lexington, Coyote, Almaden) must
be acceptable to the District, which
may require water quality monitoring
depending on project's potential for
adverse impacts. Consider protective
measures in source water protection
zones and sensitive areas of reservoir
watersheds. Erosion. and sediment
control measures are required to
prevent sediment contribution from the
construction area to the reservoir.
V1. OUTFAL1.S, PUMP
STATIONS AND SITE
DRAINAGE
Related Resource Agent
Permits: In addition to the
G&S's below, a discharge :to a
wuiercourse,reauiFes notification
to Regional Water Quality Control
Soard, California Deparirnent of
F;sh dnd Game (i.e..Strearnbed
Alteration Agreement), and in
most cases, the US Army Corps
of Engineers and heir Feceral
consulting agencies. Applicants
may choose to complete a DARPA
Joint Aquatic Resource Permit
Application) il pe -nits nre required
f-orn more than one Resource
Agency.
VI.A.1 Site Drainage
Runoff must not be directed across stream
watershed boundaries as a result of
design.
VI.A.2 Site Drainage
Direct site drainage through vegetated
areas or stilling basins prior to discharge
or collection in storm drain system.
VI.A.3 Site Drainage
No concentrated overbank drainage
is allowed (e.g. roof overhangs or
downspouts). If overbank drainage will
occur, use vegetative buffer strips or direct
drainage to landscaped areas.
VI.B.1 Outfalls
Prefer that there are no new outfalls,
However, if there is no way to avoid new
outfalls then the following applies:
1. Minimize the number of outfalls.
2. New channel outfalls must conform
to the local municipality's drainage
master plan.
Slope protection for outfalls must
meet SCVWD minimum engineering
standards using softer slope protection
methods if possible (see Standard
Details and Specifications). Outfalls
should not overhang the, bank or bed
as this can lead to excessive channel
erosion.
4. Minimum diameter is 12 inches
and discharge must be oriented
downstream and pipe invert should
be at least 2 feet above the stream
bottom in areas where sediment
deposition is anticipated.
5. Flap gates will be installed when
100-year water surface is above
USER MANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STRE j\~,s 3.13
a WJ
similar designs to isolate the flap
VIL CHANNELIZA'fION
gate and keep them out of flow
area (see Standard Details and
Peiated Resource !agency
r__ •L•__i•___~
0pectficuu~~~~~•
,
Permits: in addition to the G&S's
Outfalls on federal projects
below, these activities may require"" "
(Coyote Creek downstream of
r otification to 'egional Water
Montague Expressway, Guadalupe
Quolity Control Board, California
'
River downstream of Blossom
i.e.
Deparlment of Fish and Game
Hill, Llagas Creek downstream
Streombed Alteration Agreement), f
of Buena Vista, and Uvas Creek
and in most cases, the US Arrn,y
downstream of Santa Teresa)
Corps of Engineers and their
must be submitted to SCVWD to
i eaeml consulting agencies.
coordinate federal review and
Anolicants ruby choose to complete
approval.
a JARPA (Joint Aquatic Resource
Permit Application) if permits are
7. In conjunction with new or
required from more then one
I
redevelopment, abandoned
Resource Agency. I
outfoll pipes and slope protection
must be removed and the stream
bank restored to similar condition
VII.A. Undergrounding Creeks
existing upstream and downstream
1 . Streams must not be buried or put
of site.
into culverts.
8. Permits are needed from Dept of
2. The exception for culverts only is for
Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps,
road crossings though they should
and RWQCB. See Standard Details
be clear-span whenever possible.
and Specifications.
If culverts are used they must carry
VI.B.2. Outfalls
the bankfull flow, accommodate
Discharge must not pollute receiving"
a modified floodplain drainage
water or cause channel erosion. Non
and where feasible accommodate
storm water discharges not already
a 100-year flow rate. This is
subject to existing NPDES requirement
accomplished. with multi-stage
will be subject to approval and permit
culverts with cross-sections j
from RWQCB.
designed to carry different flows.
VI.C1. Storm Drainage Pump
Stations
Limit pump discharges to the extent
feasible during peak flows to minimize
potential impacts from flooding.
When a development requires a storm
drain pump station that discharges
to a stream, require discharge
management plan that addresses
pump operation during high water
(flood) events.
3. Regional debris or sediment basins
that will be owned or maintained
by SCVWD must be designed for
50-year sediment capacity.
4. Filling creeks to accommodate
grading and construction for
developments is not permissible
until impact avoidance and
minimization efforts are maximized.
In the event that impacts are ii
determined to be unavoidable,
adequate mitigation must be
proposed.
3.14 USEP, MANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS
I
i
~ ,,I
GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FUR LAND Ubt: NhAK bIKCAM3
CEQA document must be
prepared to provide mitigation
for impacts of burying stream and
v NNivpriwc rcgu~u wiy 'uyci ~Cji
permits, such as a Streambed
Alteration Agreement (SAA) must
be obtained. The city/county
storm drain system, whether in
pipes or roadside ditches, is not
included in this standard.
VII.B. Open Channel !Modification
1. The design must consider stream
dynamics and induced flooding.
A hydraulic analysis acceptable to
SCVWD will be required.
2. Recommend restoration of natural
stream processes if possible.
3. Impacts to habitat must be
avoided or mitigated.
4. Stream conveyance area must
be designed for 100-year design
flow with freeboard, if along a
SCVWD jurisdictional area.
5. SCVWD may request dedication
of right-of-way for stream
modification projects, including
an 18-22 foot wide maintenance
area.
6. Notify and secure appropriate
state and regulatory permits, such
as a SAA.
EXCEPTION: If active channel and
j floodplain will not contain the design
100-year flow, then the design can
be based on existing capacitywith the
allowance for providing additional
active floodplain width in the future
to contain the design 100-year.flow,
Streams to be dedicated to SCVWD
must include an 18-22 foot wide
maintenance area. In addition flood
capacity less than the 100-year flow
i` is acceptable if the community in
the flood zone is willing to accept
less protection and ongoing flood
insurance requirements.
VIII. UTILITY
ENCROACHMENTS
:elated Resource Agency
Permits. In addition to the G&S's
below, utility encroachments may
require notification io Regional
Water Quality Control Board,
California Department of Fish and
Game (i.e. Streambed Alterction
Agreement), and in most cases,,
the US Army Corps of Enginee7-
nna thelrFecerai consulting
aaencies. Applicants may choose
to complete a JARPA !Joint Aquatic
Resource Perniii Apphcaiion' it
permits are required from more
than one Resource Agency.
VIIII.A. Longitudinal (parallel)
encroachments.
Longitudinal (parallel) encroachments are
not allowed in SCVWD right-of-way.
EXCEPTION: Longitudinal encroachments
are discouraged and may only be
considered with demonstration that all
other Alterations have been considered,
there is a benefit to SCVWD and future
removal will not be necessary considering
SCVWD interests. No water pipelines may
be installed within a levee.
Vili.B. Utilities Crossings
1. Utility pipes or conduits must go under
the stream or be in or attached to
the downstream face of a bridge and
must go under any levees. Provide
locations for future utility crossings in
design of new or replacement bridges.
2. Any utilities under the stream must be
I;
concrete encased or placed in sleeve. li
3. Borings must be 5 feet below lined
channels and 8 feet below unlined
channels. Recommend under-channel
utilities be installed by directional
bore.
USER W,NUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDF.RDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREA/,/,S 3.15
4. For cut and cover, clearance
IX. TRAIL CONSTRUCTION
must be a minimum of three (3)
feet and based on scour depth.
Reiated Resource Agency
Replacement of fill in levees is
Perrnits. In addilion to the G&S's
subject to SCVWD specifications.
below, trail construction may
5. Any aerial utility crossings (e.g.
require norificction to Regional
PG&E and phone lines) meet
lharer Quality Control Board,
I ,
minimum OSHA vertical clearance
California Department of Fish and
criteria. (22 feet for non-power
ame (i e. 5treambed Alteration
G
lines, 26 feet for power lines less
Agreement), and in most cases,
than 600 volts, 30 feet for power
f,~e US Army Corps of Engineers i'
lines from 600 to 50,000 volts)
and their Federal consulting
to allow safe use of maintenance
agencies. Applicants may choose
equipment.
to complete e 1ARPA (Joint Aquatic
Resource Permit Application) if
6. Crossings of treated (potable
permits are required from more
and recycled) water pipelines
than one Resource Agency.
must meet Department of Health
Services clearance requirements.
(see Standard Details and
IX.A. Design/Construction
Specifications for standards for
Related to Trail Construction
crossings of SCVWD pipelines and
Joint Use Pedestrian/Bicycle Paths are
City/ County requirements for
encouraged along creeks. Trails must
other pipeline clearances)
be located so as to avoid impacts to
7. Directional drilling projects using
the stream and riparian areas. Paved
bentonite or other lubricants
multi use trails should be placed so as
to go beneath or near streams
to maximize distance from stream and
and aquatic habitats will require
riparian areas. Construction must not
development of a fracout
require deep excavation within tree
prevention and response plan
root zones.
describing how water quality
will be protected in the event of
EXCEPTION: Exceptions may be
fracout
allowed if impacts are addressed and
determined to be unavoidable in a
EXCEPTIONS:
CEQA document and approved by
if not feasible to go under or attach
appropriate regulatory agencies.
to the downstream face of bridge,
the utility crossing may be located
on the upstream face of bridge if the
design would not catch debris, would
be capable of surviving impacts from
floating debris in high flow, and would
not hinder emergency debris removal
or maintenance operations.
3.16 USER MANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOP. LAID USE NEAR STREAMS
GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR LAND Ubl: Nt:kf blKt IVIa
IX.A2. Design/Construction
Related
to Trail Construction
Design must be consistent with
the Santa Clara County Parks
and Recreation Department's
Interjurisdictional Trail Guidelines.
Night lighting of trails along riparian
corridors should be avoided.
EXCEPTION: Exceptions may be
allowed if impacts are addressed and
mitigated in a CEQA document and
approved by appropriate regulatory
agencies.
IX.A3. Design/Construction
Related
to Trail Construction
Memorial plaques along trail corridors
on SCVWD right of way are subject to
jurisdiction review and approval. With
appropriate planning and community
contribution, a memorial area
recognizing community members will
be considered.
IX.B. Trails on District right of way
require an agreement that defines
maintenance, management, and
liability responsibilities of facilities..
X. SEPTIC SYSTEMS
X.A. Design Of Septic Systems
Follow requirements of RWQCB or
Santa Clara County as applicable
including: Leach field setback
100' from top of bank, 50' from
swale, 200' from high water mark
of reservoir, prohibited in 10 year
floodplain or areas observed to flood
from field observations. Consult with
SCVWD to determine whether land
feature is an active floodplain or Swale
and assist in determining high water
marks at reservoirs.
i
EXCEPTION: Exceptions or variances
are allowed per RWQCB or Santa Clara
County requirements. Please note that
since 10-year floodplain maps do not
exist, any area of historical flooding
should be assumed to be in the 10-
year floodplain.
i
X6. T RASi1 C0INT RvL
AND REMOVAA 1.
XI.A. Location of Trash Bins
Locate trash bins away from streams
and follow other measures outlined in
NPDES guidance.
X:61. PROTECTION OF
WATER QUALITY
XII.A. Water Quality
1. Cities, County, and SCVWD should
comply with applicable provisions
of NPDES stormwater permits.
Implement Infiltration Guidelines in
the SCVRPPP C.3 handbook, where
appropriate.
2. Retention ponds and infiltration
trenches that do not meet
guidelines will be reviewed by
SCVWD and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
X111. GROUNDWATER
PROTECTION
XIII.A. Groundwater
Require groundwater resource i"
assessments when potential for
significant groundwater supply or
groundwater quality impacts. The
changes in land use where these
impacts may be significant are
anticipated to be subject to CEQA
USER MANUAL; GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAID USE NEAR STREAIJ,S 3.17
XIII.A2 Groundwater
To protect Santa Clara County
groundwater recharge areas, new high
risk activities defined by Depariment
of Health Services (DHS) should be
prohibited in wellhead protection
areas as designated on District
GIS Maps. Manage (limit, monitor
and implement best management
practices) existing high risk activities in
recharge areas of basin.
XIII.A3. Groundwater
The owners must show any existing
wells on the plans. The wells must be
properly registered with the SCVWD
and either be maintained or destroyed
in accordance with SCVWD standards.
XIV. FLOOD PIZZOTECTION
XIV.A. Flooding Protection
1. For development within special
flood hazard zones A, AE, AH, AO,
the project must comply with FEMA
requirements as implemented by the
City. or County.
2. Consider when and how to
recommend increased levels of
protection as described in Dept of
Water Resources Model Floodplain
Ordinance, recommendations of
California Floodplain Management
Task Force (Dec 2002), and FEMNs
Community Rating System Program.
EXCEPTION: Exceptions or
variances allowed per City or County
Ordinances, Policies, or other
implementation documents.
XIV.A2. Flooding Protection
In zone A (areas where base flood
elevations have not been detern-nned)
require a hydraulic analysis to
determine the base flood elevation
for subdivisions greater than 5 acres
or 50 lots whichever is lesser. For
other construction and substantial
improvements, utilize any other
available base flood elevation data as
criteria for meeting NFIP requirements.
XIV.A3. Flooding Protection
If a proposed project will result in a
significant increase in land use density'
(i.e. an agricultural area changes to
residential or industrial), the local
jurisdiction should work cooperatively
with SCVWD to determine (1) what
information is needed on a project
specific basis to evaluate potential
increases in flood flows and (2)
what mitigation measures can be
implemented to mitigate for impacts to
flood conveyance capacity and/or flood
protection.
Detention basins may be used to
mitigate the impact, but they must be
properly designed and maintained.
Design should be in concert with
hydromodification facilities and
consider regional solutions.
3.18 USER MANUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS
GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR LANL) Ubt: MtAK .11 KC IVia
XIV.A4. Flood Protection
For major developments near
i_____ L'_,a t_!`Cl1 A aL ~i
s sear is suulec to IUYic n~u~
are compatible with the General
Plan utilized for developing District
hydrology and FEMA floodmaps,
development must not, increase site
runoff so as to increase depth (0.1 foot
increase in water surface) or lateral
extent of flooding or increase discharge
in local streams as outlined in the
storm water permit for the SLV URPPP.
A hydraulic analysis prepared by
registered civil engineer demonstrating
that any flood impacts will not be
created is required.
The District's hydrology and design flood flow rates were developed in the late 1970's using the land use designations shown
on General Plans in place at that time. These flow rates have recently been updated, but -the impact has not yet been analyzed.
In general, the changes in land use that could significantly impact runoff quantities are typically those outside the urban service
area, in south county and those developments where the change in land use will be subject to CEQA review. The impacts to
be addressed are to flood conveyance facilities designed using 1978 (or prior) flow rates and built to provide 100 year flood
protection and impacts to flood prone areas which were also determined using the 1978 flow rates.
USER WNUAL: GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STRE i,/,s 3.19
' ~ rs
ORDINANCE NO. 06-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
CONCERNING PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, together with representatives of the County
of Santa Clara, the cities and towns within the County (Municipal Organizations), the
Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board and representatives of community interests including business,
environmental, agricultural, development, and property owners, formed the Santa Clara Valley
Water Resources Protection Collaborative (Collaborative); and,
WHEREAS, the Collaborative members share the water and watershed resources protection
goals of flood management, drinking water quality and adequate quantity, surface and
groundwater quality and quantity, and habitat protection enhancement; and,
WHEREAS, the Collaborative developed a set of model guidelines and standards for land use
near streams (Guidelines and Standards) to apply to activities on properties near streams in
order to protect streams and streamside resources; and,
WHEREAS, each Municipal Organization agreed to take forward to their governing body the
Guidelines and Standards in the manner appropriate for each jurisdiction by February 28, 2007;
and,
WHEREAS, the District intends to implement the Guidelines and Standards by adopting the
District's Water Resources Protection Manual; and,
WHEREAS, in order to accomplish its goals, the Collaborative recognized the importance of
delineation of permit responsibility for administering the implementation of the Guidelines and
Standards; and,
WHEREAS, the District recognizes that the most effective way to regulate land uses near
streams on non-District properties is to incorporate the review and permitting into existing
development review conducted by the Municipal Organizations; and,
WHEREAS, as of February 28, 2007, the District will require Permits only for modifications,
entry, use, or access of District Facilities and/or District Easements; and,
NOW THEREFORE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
October 24, 2006 Page 1 of 17
ATTACHMENT 6
ARTICLE 1.0 GEI
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
VERAL PROVISIONS
Reference
Purpose and Intent of Ordinance
Interpretations
Definitions
Severability
Notice
Permits Issued Before Effective Date
ARTICLE 2.0 PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES
2.1 Purpose of Article
2.2 Encroachment Permit Requirements
2.2.1 Encroachment Permit Required
2.2.2 Exception
2.3 Encroachment Permit Procedures
2.3.1 Application and Fees
2.3.2 Environmental Assessment
2.3.3 Action on Applications
2.4 Time Limit for Commencing Use of Encroachment Permit
2.5 Permit Revocation, Modification, and Suspension
2.5.1 Cause for Permit Revocation, Modification, and Suspension
2.5.2 Notice of Decision to Revoke, Modify, and Suspend a Permit
2.6 Appeals
2.6.1 Right to Appeal; Timing
2.6.2 Hearing and Decision
ARTICLE 3.0 ENFORCEMENT
3.1 Purpose
3.2 Violation of Ordinance
3.3 Criminal and Civil Penalties
3.4 Administrative Remedies
3.4.1 Compliance Order
3.4.2 Method of Service
3A.3 Hearing
3.4.4 Notice of Hearing
3.4.5 Hearing - Findings and Order
3.4.6 Administrative Penalties
3.4.7 Administrative Costs
3.4.8 Lien
3.5 Abatement
3.5.1 Notice of Intent to Abate
3.5.2 Findings; Abatement Order
3.5.3 Time for Abatement; Lien
ARTICLE 4.0 DISTRICT WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION MANUAL
4.1 Purpose
42 Adoption of District Water Resources Protection Manual
4.3 Procedure to Adopt and Amend District Water Resources Protection
Manual
4.3.1 Notice of Public Hearing
October 24, 2006 Page 2 of 17
Y Er,
4.3.2 Adoption or Amendment to District Water Resources Protection
Manual
ARTICLE 5.0 EFFECTIVE DATE, REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 83-2
5.1 Effective Date
5.2 Repeal of Ordinance 83-2
October 24, 2006 Page 3 of 17
ARTICLE 1.0
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1.1 REFERENCE
This Ordinance should be known and cited as the Water Resources Protection Ordinance of the
Santa Clara Valley Water District.
SECTION 1.2 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF ORDINANCE
The intent of this Ordinance is to secure the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the
District and to accomplish District purposes described in the District Act, including providing a
reliable supply of healthy and clean Water; reducing the potential for flood damages; protecting
and when appropriate enhancing and restoring natural resources of streams and watersheds;
prohibiting injury to District property and projects; and providing additional open spaces, trails,
and parks along creeks and in the watersheds when reasonable and appropriate.
SECTION 1.3 INTERPRETATIONS
The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or designee is entitled to decide any question involving the
interpretation or application of any provision of this Ordinance and/or the District Water
Resources Protection Manual, except as may otherwise be provided herein. Any interpretation
and application of the provisions of the Ordinance and/or the District Water Resources
Protection Manual must be consistent with the purpose set forth in Section 1.2 and will be in
writing. Any external party requesting an interpretation under this Section must make the
request in writing to the CEO.
SECTION 1.4 DEFINITIONS
This section defines terms that have meanings specific to the interpretation of this Ordinance.
Board: The Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
CEO: Chief Executive Officer of the Santa Clara Valley Water District or his/her designee.
Clerk of the Board: The Clerk of the Board of Directors of the Santa Clara Valley Water
District or his/her designee.
Development: The placement or erection of any solid material or structure; grading, removing,
dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; construction, reconstruction, demolition, or
alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal
utility; and the removal or installation of vegetation.
District: Santa Clara Valley Water District.
October 24, 2006 Page 4 of 17
District Act: State law creating the District and enabling its powers and operation (Calif. Water
Code Appendix, Ch. 60)
District Easements: Lands not owned by the District in fee title, over which the District has
been granted an easement for purposes specified in the easement document.
District Facility: Lands, structures, or improvements and appurtenances owned, controlled,
operated or maintained by the District for water conservation, water supply, flood protection,
storm water management and treatment, environmental protection, environmental
enhancement, environmental mitigation or other lawful District purpose. Examples of District
facilities are groundwater recharge (percolation) ponds, reservoirs, sediment control basins,
pipelines, treatment plants, pumping stations, and injection wells. Lands owned by the District in
fee are considered District Facilities.
Encroachment Permit: Written permission granted by the District pursuant to this Ordinance
allowing a Permittee to enter, use, temporarily access, or undertake any modification on District
facilities.
Modification: Any alteration to District facilities, including but not limited to the activities
defined under development.
Municipal Organization: The County of Santa Clara or a city or town within Santa Clara
County.
Permit Authority. District employee designated by the CEO to make decisions regarding the
issuance of encroachment permits.
Permittee: A Person or entity to whom an Encroachment Permit under this Ordinance has
been issued.
Person: Any individual, firm, corporation, club, or governmental agency, and all associations or
combinations of persons whenever acting for themselves or by any agent or employee.
Stream: A body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or
channel having banks. The body of water may include a surface or subsurface flow that
supports or has supported riparian vegetation, fish and/or aquatic life.
District Water Resources Protection Manual: A set of requirements and supporting design
guidelines including minimum standards to protect water, watershed resources, and District
facilities, modified and adopted according to Article 4 of this Ordinance.
Structure: Anything made or constructed and having its foundation or support upon or within
the ground.
October 24, 2006 Page 5 of 17
SECTION 1.5 SEVERABILITY
If any section or provision of this Ordinance is found to be unconstitutional or invalid, that finding
will not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole nor any part thereof, other than the part
found to be unconstitutional or invalid.
SECTION 1.6 NOTICE
Whenever a notice is required to be given under this Ordinance, unless different provisions
herein are otherwise specifically made, such notice maybe given either by personal delivery
thereof to the Person to be notified or by deposit in the United States Mail, in a sealed envelope
postage prepaid, addressed to such Person to be notified at his last-known business or
residence address as the same appears in the public records or other records pertaining to the
matter to which such notice is directed. Service by mail will be deemed to have been completed
at the time of deposit in the post office.
SECTION 1.7 PERMITS ISSUED BEFORE EFFECTIVE DATE
1.7.1 Permits Involving District Facilities or Easements
Any permit for work on and/or use of District Facilities or Easements issued by
the District prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, under District Ordinance
83-2 or a predecessor ordinance, is subject to the provisions of Sections 2.5 and
2.6 and Article 3 of this Ordinance.
1.7.2 Other permits
As to any permit issued by the District prior to the effective date of this Ordinance
under District Ordinance 82-2 or a predecessor ordinance, other than those
described in Section 1.7.1, the District will inspect work not yet complete on the
effective date to ensure compliance with permit conditions.
October 24, 2006 Page 6 of 17
ARTICLE 2.0
PROTEc"nON OF WATER RESOURCES
SECTION 2.1 PURPOSE OF ARTICLE
This Article establishes the requirement to obtain an Encroachment Permit for Modifications on
District Facilities and/or District Easements. It also establishes a procedure for the
administration and issuance of such Encroachment Permits.
SECTION 2.2 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
2.2.1 Encroachment Permit Required
No Person will do or cause to be done any Modification on or within a District
Facility or District Easement, or use any such Facility or District Easement,
unless an Encroachment Permit for the Modification and/or use has been issued
and is in effect. An Encroachment Permit is not transferable unless its conditions
provide otherwise.
2.2.2 Exceptions
A. An Encroachment Permit is not required for access onto District Facilities
or District Easements that have been opened to and developed for public
recreational purposes, or when the Permit Authority determines that the
access and requirements applicable thereto have already been
established by contract or by operation of law.
B. Where the District holds a nonexclusive easement, the owner of the
underlying fee is not required to obtain an Encroachment Permit for
activities not in conflict with the District easement unless the easement
requires District approval for the activity or work.
SECTION 2.3 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PROCEDURES
This Section establishes the process for obtaining an Encroachment Permit from the District.
2.3.1 Application and Fees
A. Requests for an Encroachment Permit must be filed with the Permit
Authority on the application form established and maintained by that
Permit Authority. All applications must be accompanied by a filing fee in
an amount established by the Board.
B. An application for an Encroachment Permit must be signed by a duly
authorized agent of the party proposing the Modification and/or use for
which the Encroachment Permit is required.
October 24, 2006 Page 7 of 17
2.3.2 Environmental Assessment
Issuance of an Encroachment Permit is subject to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
A. For any Encroachment Permit associated with a project that will be
approved or carried out by a Municipal Organization or other public entity
as lead agency, the lead agency's environmental assessment for the
project must include those activities covered by the Encroachment
Permit. It is the responsibility of the applicant to assure that this
environmental assessment is completed and provided to the District.
B. For any Encroachment Permit which is not associated with a project for
which a Municipal Organization or other public entity is the lead agency,
the District will be the lead agency.
C. All applications for an environmental assessment must be accompanied
by a filing fee as established by the Board.
D. The environmental assessment may be undertaken by or under contract
to the District and be at the applicant's expense. Once a project has
been found to require an environmental assessment, no decision on an
Encroachment Permit request will be made until the assessment has
been certified as complete as required by state law. The Permit Authority
will take all actions required by CEQA on behalf of the District, unless
otherwise provided by law.
2.3.3 Action on Applications
The Permit Authority will take all actions on the application except as provided in
Section 2.6.
A. Findings for Encroachment Permits.
An Encroachment Permit may be issued if the District finds, based on
substantial evidence, that the proposed Modification:
Will not impede, restrict, retard, pollute, change the direction of the
flow of water, catch or collect debris carried by such water;
2. Is located where natural flow of the storm and flood waters will not
damage or carry any Structure or any part thereof downstream;
3. Will not damage, weaken, erode, cause siltation or reduce the
effectiveness of the banks to withhold storm and flood waters;
4. Will be constructed to resist erosion and siltation and entry of
pollutants and contaminants;
October 24, 2006 Page 8 of 17
5. Will not interfere with maintenance responsibilities or Structures
placed or erected for flood protection, water conservation or
distribution;
6. Conforms to the requirements of the District Water Resources
Protection Manual; and
7. Meets the purpose and intent of the District Act.
8. issuance of the Encroachment Permit is in the public interest; and
9. Issuance of the Encroachment Permit will not result in conflict with
or detriment to existing or planned District Facilities.
B. Conditions of Approval.
An Encroachment Permit will be issued subject to conditions when the
conditions are required in order for the District to make the required
findings for issuance. These conditions will be commensurate with the
nature and magnitude of the request and may include a time limit on the
life of the Encroachment Permit.
C. Notice of Action.
Upon the approval, conditional approval or denial of an application, the
District will prepare and deliver to the applicant a written notice of the
action which will be served as provided in Section 1.6 of this Ordinance.
If the application is approved, the notice will include any conditions
applicable to the Encroachment Permit and a requirement that the
applicant must provide a written acceptance of the Encroachment Permit
and its conditions. The notice will also include a description of the appeal
process described in Section 2.6.
D. Preemption Provision.
If an Encroachment Permit would conflict with or be preempted by state
law, state law will govern but only with respect to the specific issues of
conflict.
E. Applicant Acceptance of Conditions.
Within 30 days from the date the Notice of Action is issued, an applicant
or authorized representative as described in Section 2.3.1 must provide
the District in writing an acceptance of the conditions of the
Encroachment Permit. The date the District receives the written
acceptance is the effective date of the Encroachment Permit.
October 24, 2006 Page 9 of 17
SECTION 2.4 TIME LIMIT FOR COMMENCING USE OF ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
Unless specific language in an Encroachment Permit otherwise provides, the Encroachment
Permit expires 730 calendar days after its effective date if the permitted Modification or use has
not commenced by that time. The Permit Authority may extend this time period once upon
written request of the Permittee demonstrating good cause therefor.
SECTION 2.5 PERMIT REVOCATION, MODIFICATION, AND SUSPENSION
2.5.1 Cause for Permit Revocation, Modification, and Suspension
A Permit may be revoked, modified, or suspended by the District if one or more
of the following is found to have occurred:
A. The Permit was issued in conflict with the provisions of any District
regulation or federal and/or state law or as a result of incorrect
information or the fraud or willful misrepresentation by the applicant or
applicant's agent.
B. The actions undertaken pursuant to the Permit have created a discharge
or threatened discharge which presents a hazard or threat of hazard to
the public health or safety or the natural environment which was not
anticipated or known at the time the Permit was issued.
C. The structures or improvements covered by the Permit create a
dangerous condition to life or property.
D. The Modification is not being carried out in accordance with the approved
plans and/or in accordance with the specific terms of the permit.
E. It is necessary to remove or relocate the permitted use or improvements
in order to accommodate District uses or future improvements.
2.5.2 Notice of Decision to Revoke, Modify, and Suspend a Permit
A. The Permit Authority will notify the permittee in writing of the Permit
Authority's decision to revoke, modify or suspend a permit. The notice will
be served as provided in Section 1.6.
B. The notice of decision will state the grounds for revocation, modification
or suspension of the permit and will notify the permittee of the appeal
process described in Section 2.6.
October 24, 2006 Page 10 of 17
SECTION 2.6 APPEALS
2.6.1 Right to Appeal; Timing
An applicant or Perrnittee may appeal a decision made by the Permit Authority
under Sections 2.3.3 and 2.5.2 of this Article. An appeal must be in writing and
filed with the Clerk of the Board no later than ten (10) days following issuance of
the decision from which the appeal is taken.
2.6.2 Hearing and Decision
Upon filing of a timely appeal, the CEO will, within ten (10) calendar days from
the receipt of the request, set a time and place for the hearing. The hearing will
be conducted by the CEO and will be scheduled within 45 days of receipt of the
hearing request. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the CEO will issue a written
decision on the appeal. The CEO's decision is final.
October 24, 2006 Page 11 of 17
ARTICLE 3.0
ENFORCEMENT
SECTION 3.1 PURPOSE
This Article defines the situations considered to be violations of this Ordinance and describes
the District's process for addressing such violations.
SECTION 3.2 VIOLATION OF ORDINANCE
The following are unlawful and constitute violations of this Ordinance:
A. Failure to comply with Sections 2.2.1 hereof.
B. Failure of a Permittee to comply with any condition of an Encroachment Permit.
SECTION 3.3 CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES
Any violation of this Ordinance as described in Section 3.2 is punishable as a misdemeanor.
The prosecutor may in his or her discretion specify that the offense is an infraction. Each day of
a continuing violation constitutes a separate and distinct violation. Any such violation or
threatened violation may also be enjoined by civil action.
SECTION 3.4 ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
In addition to any other remedy, the District may pursue administrative remedies in accordance
with this Section. Use of this Section is at the sole discretion of the District.
3.4.1 Compliance Order
Whenever the Permit Authority determines that a violation of any provision of this
Ordinance is occurring or exists, the Permit Authority may issue a written
compliance order to any Person responsible for the violation. The order must
contain the following information: the date and location of the violation; the
section of this Ordinance violated and a description of the violation; the actions
required to correct the violation; the time period after which administrative
penalties will begin to accrue if compliance with the order has not been achieved;
and either a copy of this Section or an explanation of the consequences of
noncompliance with this Section and a description of the hearing procedure and
appeal process.
October 24, 2006 Page 12 of 17
I
3.4.2 Method of Service
The compliance order will be served as provided in Section 1.6. Where real
property is involved, written notice will be mailed to the property owner at the
address shown on the last equalized county assessment roll.
3.4.3. Hearing
If the Permit Authority determines that all violations have been corrected within
the time specified in the compliance order, no further action will be taken under
this Section 3.4. If full compliance is not achieved within the time specified, a
hearing will be scheduled before the CEO.
3.4.4. Notice of Hearing
Notice of hearing on the compliance order will be given as provided in
Section 1.6. The hearing will be set for a date not less than 15 days nor more
than sixty days from the date of the notice hearing unless the Permit Authority
determines the matter is urgent or that good cause exists for an extension of
time. The hearing is intended to provide the full opportunity for any Person
subject to a compliance order to object to the determination that a violation has
occurred and/or that the violation has continued to exist. The failure of any
Person subject to a compliance order to appear at the hearing will constitute a
failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
3.4.5. Hearing - Findings and Order
A. At the hearing, the CEO will consider any written or oral evidence
consistent with rules that may be established from time to time for the
conduct of such hearings. Within a reasonable time following the
conclusion of the.hearing, the CEO will make findings and issue a
determination regarding the existence of the violation and the failure of
the violator or owner to take corrective action within the required time
period. The determination will include written findings and be supported
by evidence received at the hearing.
B. If the CEO determines that a violation occurred which was not corrected
within the time period specified in the compliance order, the CEO will
issue an administrative order that imposes any or all of the following:
1. An order to correct, including a schedule for correction.
2. Administrative penalties as provided in Section 3.4.6.
3. Administrative costs as provided in Section 3.4.7.
3.4.6 Administrative Penalties
The CEO may impose administrative penalties for the violation of any provision
of this Ordinance in an amount not to exceed a maximum of $1000 per day for
each ongoing violation, except that the total administrative penalty will not
exceed $100,000 for any related series of violations. In determining the amount
October 24, 2006 Page 13 of 17
V
of the administrative penalty, the CEO may consider any or all of the following
factors: duration and seriousness of the violation; number of violations by the
same violator; good faith efforts to come into compliance; economic impact of the
penalty on the violator, and impact of the violation on the community and
environment. The CEO may suspend the imposition of applicable penalties for
any period of time during which the violator has applied for necessary permits
and the Encroachment Permit applications are actively pending. If the violation is
not corrected as specified in the administrative order, the administrative penalties
will continue to accrue as specified in the order subject to the maximum amount
described in this Section.
3.4.7 Administrative Costs
The CEO may assess administrative costs against the violator upon a finding that
a violation has occurred and compliance has not been achieved within the time
specified in the compliance order. The administrative costs may include any and
all costs incurred by the District in connection with the matter which is the subject
of proceedings under Section 3.4, including but not limited to costs of
investigation, preparation for the hearing, and conduct of the hearing.
3.4.8 Lien
Failure to pay the assessed administrative penalties and administrative costs
specified in the administrative order of the CEO may be enforced as a personal
obligation of the violator and/or if the violation is in connection with real property,
a lien upon the property. The lien will have no force and effect until recorded with
the County Recorder. Recordation will not occur until 90 days after the
administrative order, to provide an opportunity for payment and/or judicial review
of the decision. Once recorded, the lien will remain in effect until all of the
administrative penalties are paid in full.
3.5. ABATEMENT
In addition to any other remedy, the District may pursue abatement under this
Section 3.5 when any violation of this Ordinance constitutes a serious threat to the public
health, safety, or welfare.
3.5.1 Notice of Intent to Abate
The District may include in any compliance order and notice issued under
Section 3.4 notice of the District's intent to abate the violation if not corrected
within the time specified in the compliance order.
3.5.2 Findings; Abatement Order
If following the hearing held under Section 3.4 the CEO finds, in addition to the
findings described in Section 3.4.513, that the continuing violation constitutes a
serious threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, then the CEO may include
in the administrative order notification that unless the violation is corrected within
October 24, 2006 Page 14 of 17
the time specified in that order, the District will abate the violation and that the
abatement costs will be charged against the property owner. In addition to the
notice as provided in Section 1.6, this order will be posted in a conspicuous place
on the subject property.
3.5.3 Time for Abatement; Lien
Abatement will not occur until at least 90 days after issuance of the abatement
order to provide time for compliance and/or judicial review of the abatement
order. Costs incurred by the District for the abatement action may be enforced
as a personal obligation of the property owner and as a lien against the property,
as provided in Section 3.4.8.
October 24, 2006 Page 15 of 17
ARTICLE 4.0
DISTRICT WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION MANUAL
SECTION 4.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Article is to set forth the process used by the District to adopt or amend the
District Water Resources Protection Manual and to describe its uses.
SECTION 4.2 ADOPTION OF DISTRICT WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION MANUAL
The Board will adopt, and may from time to time amend, a District Water Resources Protection
Manual to be used as a basis for evaluation of applications for Encroachment Permits, for
establishment of Encroachment Permit conditions in order to make the required findings for
issuance of such Encroachment Permits. The District Water Resources Protection Manual may
incorporate by reference documents promulgated by the CEO.
SECTION 4.3 PROCEDURE TO ADOPT AND AMEND DISTRICT WATER RESOURCES
PROTECTION MANUAL
The Board will schedule and hold a public hearing to consider adoption of District Water
Resources Protection Manual and any subsequent amendments.
4.3.1 Notice of Public Hearing
A notice of the hearing will be provided at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled
hearing. The notice will include the date, time,and place of the hearing, and a general
explanation of proposed content of the District Water Resources Protection Manual or
any amendments thereto. Notice will be given by first class mail to Municipal
Organizations within the county and to any parties who have requested such notice, by
posting the notice at the District headquarters, and by publication once in a newspaper
of general circulation. The District may, in its discretion, provide additional notice
beyond that specified in this section. Failure to comply with the notice requirements in
this section, in whole or in part, will not invalidate any action taken on the matter.
4.3.2 Adoption or Amendment to District Water Resources Protection Manual
Upon the conclusion of the public hearing, the Board may adopt or amend the District
Water Resources Protection Manual. Any such action will be taken by resolution.
October 24, 2006 Page 16 of 17
ARTICLE 5.0
EFFECTIVE DATE, REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 83-2
SECTION 5.1 EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance is effective on February 28, 2007.
SECTION 5.2 REPEAL OF ORDINANCE 83-2
On the effective date of this Ordinance, Ordinance 83-2 is repealed. Permits given and rights
acquired under Ordinance 83-2 or its predecessors will remain effective, subject to the terms of
this Ordinance.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY
WATER DISTRICT ON OCTOBER 24, 2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Directors R. Kamei, T. Estremera, S. Sanchez, R. Santos, G. Zlotnick, L. Wilson
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
RY W O 14
Chair! and of Directors
ATT T:
ur n Keller
Clerk of the Board
AP VED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY
(r), I ~ a,
D a L. Cauble
District Counsel
October 24, 2006 Page 17 of 17
MEETING DATE: 8115/05
ITEM NO.
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
(os G AT~S
DATE: AUGUST 5, 2005
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: DEBRA J. FIGONE, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION COLLABORATIVE
ADOPT RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE GUIDELINES AND
STANDARDS AND THE 2005-06 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM OF THE
WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION COLLABORATIVE FOR THE
PLANNING AND PERMIT REGULATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF
WATER RESOURCES WITHIN THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER
DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) in support of the Guidelines and Standards and the
2005-06 implementation program of the Water Resources Protection Collaborative for the planning
and permit regulation for the protection of water resources within the Santa Clara Valley Water
District (SCVWD).
BACKGROUND:
The SCVWD, along with city and county staff representatives, the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board, and other business and property interests have formed and are
members of the Water Resources Protection Collaborative (Collaborative).
The Collaborative was formed in 2003 with its purpose being to develop land use and permit
guidelines that met water resource protection needs and met the desire of the local agencies to
manage their land use and permit programs. The question at the time was whether this arena of
activity should be controlled by the SCVWD or the jurisdiction where a water course is located.
Staff has actively participated in the Collaborative and on its Steering Committee in support of a
Resolution of Consensus (ROC) to jointly develop and implement water and watershed resource
PREPARED BY: JOHN E. CURTIS
Director of Parks and Public Works
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Attorney Cleric Administrator
Finance Community Development Revised: 12/19/06 11:50 am
RC F0 rmatlcd: 5/30/02
C:\DocLmMents and Settings\cbanks\Local Settings\Tcmp\XPgrpwise\scvwd.resoliltion.water
resourccs collaborativc.81505.wpd
ATTACHMENT 7
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION COLLABORATIVE
AUGUST 5, 2005
protection measures, guidelines, and standards in Santa Clara County. A staff member from each
jurisdiction and interest group has initialed the ROC and supports its findings. The ROC is attached
to this report as (Attachment 2).
To date the Collaborative has generated several products of specific work teams. Chief among the
products are the proposed Guidelines and Standards for land use near streams and a plan for
outreach so that communities will know and understand these guidelines. Another important
outcome of the Collaborative's work is the Early Consultation program, in which cities may involve
the SCVWD personnel early in the development process in order to avoid a potential confrontation
at a later point in the review process.
A work plan has been prepared for implementation during the next 18 months, to February 2007.
Embodied in the Resolution of Consensus is a choice of Permitting Options each jurisdiction may
select. These options are summarized as follows:
Option 1: SCVWD retains permit authority. SCVWD will carry the provisions of the new ordinance
that will replace Ordinance 83-2 and Town projects near streams would be referred to SCVWD.
Option 2: The Town would adopt the Guidelines and Standards and the Implementing Tools and
would issue permits for streams 1de improvements. SCVWD would continue as the permit authority
on channels that are land or easements which they own.
Option 3: The Town and the SCVWD customize a permitting agreement.
An option need not be selected at this time and the Town may change its preference at some later
point if it so chooses. Any of these options will likely increase the time for the development process
for projects near streams.
CONCLUSION:
The Guidelines and Standards and the implementation program of the water resources protection
collaborative Water Resources Protection Collaborative is in the best interest of the Town of Los
Gatos, and staff recommends that Council adopt the attached resolution of support for the continuing
process.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This project is not defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct fiscal impact on the Town at this time; however, it should be noted that
implementation of the guidelines and standards will require staff time and will likely increase fees
associated with development projects near streams.
Attachments:
U,
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION COLLABORATIVE
AUGUST 5, 2005
1. Resolution in support of the Guidelines and Standards and the Implementation Program
2. Resolution of Consensus of the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative
Distribution:
Jim Fiedler, Santa Clara Valley Water District, 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118
E~ ' l
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
IN SUPPORT OF THE GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS AND THE 2005-06
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM OF THE WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION
COLLABORATIVE FOUR THE PLANNING AND PERMIT REGULATION FOR THE
PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES
WITHIN THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), along with staff
representatives of the County of Santa Clara ("County"), the fifteen Cities in Santa Clara County,
the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, various business and development
interests, property owners and environmental and community interests, have formed and are
members of the Water Resources Protection Collaborative; and,
WHEREAS, all Collaborative members share the water and watershed resources protection
goals of flood management, drinking water quality and quantity, surface and groundwater quality
and quantity, and habitat protection and enhancement; and
WHEREAS, The District, Cities, County are committed to furthering these goals through
the adoption of land development guidelines and standards jointly developed with other
stakeholders; and
WHEREAS, in order to accomplish these goals, the Collaborative recognizes the importance
of private creek side owners' interests, monitoring and accountability, and delineation of
responsibility for administering mutually agreed-upon policy, guidelines, and standards to which
District, County, and municipal activities, and permit review shall conform; and
WHEREAS, it is recognized that the Cities and County through Implementation of their
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits, Best Management Practices,
and other means have continuously acted to protect the watersheds and water quality in Santa Clara
County; and
WHEREAS, it is recognized that Local Control is the Key Principle to the implementation
of resource protection goals, and that Cities and the County are the primary jurisdictions for LAND
USE PLANNING and LAND USE PERMIT REGULATION, and that the broader stakeholder
community has a central role in local stewardship and enhanced resource protection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos ratified and supports the above foundational principles of the Water Resource Protection
Collaborative; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town of Los Gatos supports the following specific
components of the Collaborative agreement:
A conimitment by the Town of Los Gatos to make best efforts to incorporate the
Guidelines and Standards and other implementing tools into their appropriate land
use processes by February of 2007.
2. Cominitnlent for appropriate levels of participation in the Monitoring, Assessment,
and Adaptive Management process.
3. Commitment for participation in the early consultation of projects with SCVWD as
appropriate.
4. Commitment for continued attendance by the Town of Los Gatos members of the
Collaborative at quarterly meetings through February of 2007.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los
Gatos, California, held on the 15`x' day of August, 2005, by the following vote:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
ATTEST:
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION OF CONSENSUS
OF THE
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION
COLLABORATIVE
DOCUMENTING WORK PRODUCTS FROM PHASE III OF ITS WORK AND
DESCRIBING PROCEDURES FOR APPLYING THE GUIDELINES AND
STANDARDS FOR LAND USE NEAR STREAMS
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (°SCVWD"), along with staff
representatives of the County of Santa Clara ("County"), the Cities in Santa Clara
County ("City, Cities"), the Guadalupe-Coyote Resource Conservation District
("GCRCD"), the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board,
various business and development interests, environmental, agricultural and
community interests, and a representative of property owners' interests have
formed and are members of the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection
Collaborative ("Collaborative"); and,
WHEREAS, all Collaborative members share the goals of water and watershed
resource protection, including flood management, drinking water quality and
quantity, surface and groundwater quality and quantity, habitat protection and
enhancement; and,
WHEREAS, the Collaborative has worked to fulfill these goals by participating in
the development of several written work products, which describe the guidelines,
standards and procedures to apply to land use activities near streams and 'on
streamside properties, to protect and enhance stream and streamside resources
NOW, THEREFORE be it resolved that this RESOLUTION OF CONSENSUS is
set forth for the approval of Collaborative members and includes the following
final ratified or accepted work products.
Collaborative Phase III Work Products
1. Proposed Implementing Tools for the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use
. Near Streams, including:
a. Streamside Resource Protection Questions
b, Guide to Resource Agency Referrals for Streamside Development
c. Streamside Resource Protection Questions for Single Family Units
d. Information to be Included on Plans for Streamside Development
Resolution of Consensus ATTACHME `IT 2
P.
e. Construction-related Permit Conditions for Streamside Resource
Protection
f, Decision Tree/Flow Chart for the Use of the Proposed Guidelines and
Standards for Land Use Near Streams and related Proposed
Implementing Tools
2, Proposed Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, including:
a. Preamble for the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near
Streams
b. Proposed Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams
c. Slope Stability Requirements for Single-Family Units
d, Design Guide for the Proposed Guidelines and Standards for Land Use
Near Streams
e. Model Enhanced Practices for Land Use Near Streams
f. Proposed Incentive-based Program for Enhanced Practices
g. Model Best Management Practices for Single Family Units
h. Glossary of Key Terms
I. User Manual for Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams
3. Workplan for Outreach for the Proposed Guidelines and Standards for Land
Use Near Streams
4. Adaptive Management Process for the Guidelines and Standards for
Land Use Near Streams
5. Early Consultation Between Water SCVWD.and Local Permitting Agencies
a. Framework for Early Consultation
b. Summary of Recent and Planned Early Consultation Activities
6. Initial Work Plan for the SCVWD Comprehensive Plan
7. Workplan for the Water Resources Protection' Collaborative for the Period
September 2005-February 2007
Relationships Between SCWlD and Cities/County
NOW, THEREFORE be it further resolved that:
1, Collaborative members will bring, in the manner appropriate for each
jurisdiction, the Proposed Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near
Streams and related Proposed Implementing Tools to the governing bodies of
each respective jurisdiction for their consideration and begin to determine
how best to integrate them into existing local agency permiUregulatory
processes.
Resolution of Consensus 2
F Iv°
2. Each City and the County ("Cities/county") will then determine which
Permitting Option (see Permitting-Options 1-3 on pages 5-6) is appropriate
and necessary to allow them to apply the Proposed Guidelines and Standards
for Land Use Near Streams and related Proposed Implementing Tools,
Each City and the County will notify the SCVWD, and provide appropriate
documentation (e.g. letter, resolution, description of actions taken) setting
forth the manner in which each agency will apply the Proposed Guidelines
and Standards for Land Use Near Streams and related Proposed
Implementing Tools, as appropriate and necessary (e.g. resolution, new
ordinance, revision of existing regulations, new administrative procedures,
etc.), including the Permitting Option it has chosen. These notifications and
related documentation will be provided to the SCV\ND by a date that allows
the Cities/County to fully apply the Proposed Guidelines and Standards for
Land Use Near Streams and related Proposed Implementing Tools no later
than February 28, 2007.
4. The SCVWD will review the documentation from each City and the County
related to how each jurisdiction will apply the Proposed Guidelines and
Standards for Land Use Near Streams and related Proposed Implementing
Tools. The SCVWD will then provide a letter acknowledging and accepting
each notification received, including the Permitting Option chosen. Once a
City and/or the County has received a written acknowledgement from the
SCVWD, including acceptance of the Permitting Option selected by the local
jurisdiction, the transfer of permit authority from the SCVWD to the local
jurisdiction will commence.
New Ordinance to Replace SCUWD Ordinance 83-2 and Staged Transfer of
Permit Authority
SCVWD staff will bring a replacement to its Ordinance 83-2 to its Board for
consideration by February 28, 2006. The new ordinance will allow for the
implementation of the.Proposed Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near
Streams and related Proposed' Implementing Tools and will allow for the
application of Permitting Options 1, 2,. and' 3 as noted below. Until such time that
a City or the County elects to take the necessary action to apply the Proposed
Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams and.related Proposed
Implementing Tools, it will continue to refer land use activities, consistent with
Ordinance 83-2, to the. SCVWD. If a City or the County takes the necessary '
action needed to apply the Proposed Guidelines and Standards fo.r Land Use
Near Streams and Proposed Implementing Tools, permits on pardels adjacent to
streams will then be administered by each City and the County.
If a City or the County chooses not to take action to apply the Proposed
Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams and Proposed
Resolution of Conse-isus
Implementing Tools, the SCVWD will continue to administer permits on
streamside parcels for that jurisdiction.
Possible permitting arrangements include:
Permitting Option 1: SCVWD Retains Permit Authority
A City or the County chooses not to apply the Proposed Guidelines and
Standards for Land Use Near Streams through its local permitting process,
SCVWD adopts a new ordinance to replace Ordinance 83-2, which implements
the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams for parcels adjacent to
streams and in-channel modification for SCVWD jurisdictional streams, The City
or County continues to refer projects, consistent with the new SCVWD Ordinance
that replaces Ordinance 83-2, to the SCVWD for permitting by SCVWD.
Permitting Option 2: New Permitting Relationship
A City or the County chooses to apply, in the manner appropriate to each
jurisdiction, the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams and
related Proposed Implementing Tools, by issuing permits for all development
related to all portions of streamside parcels which are subject to local permitting,
including each jurisdictions capital improvement projects. SCVWD continues to
permit activities on channels that are on land under SCVWD ownership or
easement.
Permitting Option 3: Customized Negotiations
The SCVWD and a City or the County negotiates and applies a customized
permitting arrangement, Customized options may include:
a. Requests for SCVWD to permit and inspect streams not in SCVWD
ownership or easement..
b, Requests for SCVWD to permit and inspect streams beyond current
SCVVVD jurisdiction,
c. Cities/County request more technical services from the SCVWD than
are currently provided.
Ability to Change Permit Options
After a City or the County has initially chosen a Permitting Option from Permitting
Options 1-3 above, it may notify the SCVWD that it wishes to change the
Permitting Option it has chosen to administer, using the same notification
procedure described in paragraph #3 of the section titled Relationships Between
Resolution of Consensus
SCVWD and Cities/County on page 3 of this Resolution. The SCVWD will then
acknowledge this selection of a new Permitting Option using the procedure
described in paragraph #4 of this same section, as shown on page 4 of this
Resolution.
Interim Actions and Responsibilities
NOW, THEREFORE be it further resolved, that during the next 18 months or until
each City and the County starts to apply the Proposed Guidelines and Standards
for Land Use Near Streams and Proposed Implementing Tools to its local permit
process, as described in paragraphs 1-4 in the section of this Resolution titled
"Relationships Between SCVWD and Cities/County", each City and the County
will work in good faith to:
a. Continue referrals of land use activities to SCVWD for strearnside
parcels along SCVWD jurisdictional streams;
b, To the extent practicable, use the Proposed Implementing Tools for
the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams;
c. To the extent practicable, provide information to the public describing
as applied to proposed development or land use modifications to
parcels adjacent to streams;
d. To the extent practicable, incorporate the Proposed Guidelines and
Standards into the design of public projects in and adjacent to streams;
e. Participate in the Early Consultation process, as appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE be it further resolved, that during the next 18 months or until
each City and the County starts to apply the Proposed Guidelines and Standards
for Land Use Near Streams and Proposed Implementing Tools to its local permit
process, as described in paragraphs 1-4 in the section of this- Resolution titled
"Relationships Between SCVWD and Cities/County", SGVWD will:
a. Continue to. accept referrals for land use permits inside and beyond
SCVWD right of way (R/W) areas and issue permits outside R/W if and
until a permitting option is applied by each local permitting agency;
b. Use the Proposed Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near
Streams as a basis for comments and permit issuance for streamside
parcels;
c. Participate in an Early Consultation process, including:
i. Assigning designated staff liaison(s) to local jurisdictions, as
appropriate;
ii. To the extent practicable, streamlining of permit issuance
referrals subject to Early Consultation accompanied by
assurance from the local permitting agency that the site plan
incorporates the Proposed Guidelines and Standards for Land
Use Near Streams.
Resolution of Consensus
Ongoing Collaborative Actions and Responsibilities
NOW, THEREFORE be it further resolved, that the Cities and County will
continue to participate as members of the Water Resources Protection
Collaborative to:
i. Participate in ongoing assessment and improvement of the
Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams and
Proposed Implementing Tools through the Adaptive Management
Process;
ii. Support Collaborative efforts to facilitate application of the
Proposed Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams;
iii. Participate in the training of staff in the use of the Proposed
Guidelines and Standards for Land. Use Near Streams and related
Proposed implementing Tools;
iv. Participate in the coordination of capital projects near streams;
V. Identify and discuss emerging issues of common concern;
vi. Participate in the development of the SCVWD's Comprehensive
Plan;
vii, Provide input to SCVWD as it drafts a new ordinance to replace
Ordinance 83-2;
viii. Participate in discussions with the SCVWD and Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGO's) as part of the Adaptive Management
Process, focusing on the health and stewardship of the County's
streams; including review of 'information on the health of the
streams, to be provided periodically by the 'SCVWD;
ix. Participate in the further development of Enhanced Practices and a
related incentive-based program to support their implementation;
X. Participate in the development and dissemination of educational
materials related to the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use
Near Streams;
A Participate in development and implementation of outreach to
streamside property owners, developers and other groups;
xii. Work with SCVWD, NGO's and others to update the Guidelines and
Standards, Users Manual and Collaborative website.
NOW, THEREFORE be-.it further resolved, that the SCVVVD will provide staff and
related resources to support and facilitate the Water Resources Protection
Collaborative to:
i. Participate in ongoing assessment and improvement of the
Guidelines and Standards for - Land Use Near Streams and
Implementing Tools through the Adaptive Management Process;
ii. Support Collaborative efforts to facilitate application of the
Proposed Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams;
iii. Develop and carry out training of staff from SC` WD,
Resolution of Consensus
6
Cities/county and co[nmunity organizations in the use of the
Proposed Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near
Streams and related Proposed Implementing Tools;
iv. Participate in the coordination of capital projects near streams;
V. Identify and discuss emerging issues of common concern;
vi. Lead the development of the SCVWD's Comprehensive Plan,
anticipated to be completed by February 2007,
vii. Participate in discussions, as part of the Adaptive Management
Process, focusing on the health and stewardship of the County's
streams, including review of information on the health of the
streams, to be provided periodically by the SCVWD;
viii. Participate in the further development of Enhanced Practices and a
related incentive-based program to support their implementation;
ix. Support the development and dissemination of educational
materials related to the Guidelines 'and Standards for Land Use
Near Streams;
X. Participate in development and implementation of outreach to
streamside property owners, developers and other groups, as
needed;
Xi. Work with cities, County, NGO's and others to update the
Guidelines and Standards, Users Manual and Collaborative
website.
NOW, THEREFORE be it further resolved, that the other governmental, non-
governmental and community-based organizations that are members of the
Collaborative will continue to participate, to the extent practicable, in the
continuing Collaborative organization to:
i. Provide input into the ongoing assessment and improvement of the
Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams and
Proposed Implementing Tools through the Adaptive. Management
Process;
ii. Support Collaborative efforts to facilitate application of. the
Proposed Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams;
iii. Participate in the training of staff in the use of the Proposed
Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams and related
Proposed Implementing Tools;
iv. Support sharing information for capital projects near streams;
V. Identify and discuss emerging issues of common concern;
vi. Participate in the development of the SCVWD's Comprehensive
Plan;
W. Provide input to SC'✓WD as it drafts new a ordinance to replace
Ordinance 83-2;
viii, Participate in the Adaptive Management Process, focusing on the
health and stewardship of the County's streams, including review of
information on the health of the streams, to be provided periodically
Resolution of Consensus
7
F- I
by the SCVW D;
ix. Participate in the further development of Enhanced Practices and a
related incentive-based program to support their implementation;
X, Participate in the development and dissemination of educational
materials related to the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use
Near Streams;
A. Participate in development and implementation of outreach to
streamside property owners, developers and other groups, as
needed;
xii. Work with SCVWD, Cities/County and others to update the
Guidelines and Standards, Users Manual . and Collaborative
website.
Resolution of Consensus