SR 05-09-2017 7B
Ci ty Council
R eport
City Council Meeting : May 9, 2017
Agenda Item: 7.B
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Susan Cline, Director , Public Works, Office of Sustainability & the
Environment
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to update and modify Chapter
7.10, Urban Runoff Pollution Control.
Recommended Actio n
Staff recommends that the City Council i ntroduce for first reading the attached
amend ment to the Urban Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance , which would require
stricter measures to remove pollutants before they enter the storm drain system . These
measure s would apply to new development, construction sites and existing parcels in
the City .
Executive Summary
The R unoff P ollution M itigation O rdinance, SMMC 7.10, is the legal instrument used by
Santa Monica to reduce runoff pollution entering Santa Monica Ba y. The modifications
to this ordinance presented for Council consideration would significantly reduce
environmental impacts related to runoff and promote a stronger shift towards
sustainability in land use design and in local water resource management. Sp ecifically,
the recommended changes would keep stormwater, a water pollution source , out of the
Santa Monica Bay (Bay) and implement new requirements associated with the 2012
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit. The modified
Ord inance also includes new language for more effective and comprehensive oversight
to reduce urban runoff pollution associated with trash containment, water feature
discharges, equipment maintenance, and surface parking areas for existing properties,
known a s g ood h ousekeeping practices to protect the Bay.
Background
In 1972 the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) was created in
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. "NPDES prohibits [discharges] of pollutants from
any point source into the nation's waters except as allowed under an NPDES permit."
The program gives the EPA the authority to regulate discharges into the nation's waters
by setting limits on the effluent that can be introduced into a body of water from an
operating and permitted facility.
2 of 6
In 1987 Congress also passed the Water Quality Act , which called for increased
monitoring and assessing of water bodies to ensure that water quality standards were
not just on paper, but were actually being realized in the nation's waters. The E PA
authorized the NPDES permit program to state, tribal, and territorial governments,
enabling them to perform many of the permitting, administrative, and enforcement
aspects of the NPDES program themselves . Currently 46 states , including California
throug h the State Water Resources Control Board and the nine Regional Water Quality
Control Boards are authorized to implement the NPDES program.
In 1990, regulations for discharges from a municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4) for the NDPES permit were fin alized by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality
Control Board (Board), and the first 5 -year NPDES permit was issued to Los Angeles
County . The goal was to reduce runoff pollution entering the waters of the United
States through basic water pollution cont rol practices, such as street sweeping , catch
basin cleaning, hazardous waste facility inspection, and public education, which the C ity
was doing in part .
In 1992 , in a forward -thinking move to go beyond the basic requirements of the first
NPDES permit, t he C ity established S MMC 7.10 to control runoff pollution associated
with dry weather runoff , wet weather (stormwater), construction site activities, and daily
activities on existing parcels (good house -keeping practices). This ordinance helped
the City c omply with the 1990 NPDES permit, as well as meet the goal s of the City’s
Sustainable City Plan regarding natural resources and pollution reduction.
In 1996, the second NPDES permit was adopted by the Board with no major changes .
In late 2000, with the e xpected approval of the third NPDES Permit, SM M C 7.10 was
updated to incorporate a new requirement of the third NPDES permit , which was
adopted in early 2001 - increasing the rainfall collection numerical standard of onsite,
structural post -construction Be st Management Practice .
In 2007, the fourth NPDES permit was approved by the Board. No major changes were
made.
3 of 6
In 2010, City Council introduced for first reading an amended ordinance to update and
modify Chapter 7.10, Urban Runoff Pollution Control , pe r Attachment A . These
updates were based upon City recommendations to improve sustainable use of local
water resources, not upon regionally -imposed requirements.
On December 28, 2012, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
approved the 20 12 NPDES permit. The 2012 permit significantly expanded the scope
of stormwater management by requiring onsite harvesting, treatment, and use of
precipitation before it otherwise runs off to the municipal storm drain system and drains
into the Bay, carryi ng numerous pollutants and resulting in violations of various Clean
Water Act standards. This was a shift from the previous regional strategy of stormwater
treatment and release to Santa Monica Bay. Prior to the 2012 updates, the City’s
existing Ordinanc e focused on onsite harvesting and minimized the emphasis on treat
and release, resulting in minimal change to the management strategy within the
Ordinance . After adoption of the 2012 NPDES permit, cities were given a multi -year
timetable to develop Enhan ced Watershed Management Plans (EWMPs ). EWMPs are
comprehensive watershed plans and hydrology analyses that comply with the permit
requirements . These were submitted to the Board for its approval in 2016 . The City,
working with its watershed municipal p artners, such as Los Angeles, complied with all
deadlines.
Discussion
The proposed modifications to the Urban Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance update the
requirements for new and re -development projects to install post -construction structural
devices to collect stormwater for treatment and use , keeping pollut ants out of the Santa
Monica Bay and promoting local water use and conservation . The modified Ordinance
implements new requirements associated with the 2012 NPDES permit.
The objective s of the Ordin ance changes are to significantly reduce environmental
impacts related to urban runoff and to increase sustainable practices in land use design
and local water resource management . The Ordinance promotes Low Impact
Development land use design strategies and Green Infrastructure structural solutions.
These strategies and solutions emphasiz e using land area to retain onsite rainwater for
4 of 6
beneficial use s , reduc e the need for municipal drinking water for non -drinking purposes,
and allow the land to treat low levels of runoff pollution associated with roof runoff.
These changes also ensure the City conforms to the 2012 NPDES Permit , helping the
City avoid any financial penalties.
The major revisions to Chapter 7.10 are summarized below:
Definitions Sectio n: Updates, clarifies and adds definitions
Good Housekeeping Requirements Section: Updates and expands activities
required to prevent polluted runoff and comply with the new NPDES permit
Runoff Reduction and Post -Construction Best Management Practices (B MPs)
Requirements Section: Updates this section to focus more efficiently and broadly
on Low Impact Development and Green Infrastructure strategies to remove
pollutants from stormwater . New paragraphs are added to promote local water
supply, e.g. rainwat er, in lieu of imported water, increase vigilance and
enforcement for litter prevention, and avoid infiltrating strategies in areas
compromising safety, such as the bluffs and known contaminated soils areas.
o A new section for large parcels, equal to or gre ater than 15,000 square
feet, mandating storage of rainwater in tanks for direct indoor and outdoor
uses, such as toilet and urinal flushing, and irrigation;
o A new section on property transfer documentation that disclose s to new
owner s the presence and req uired annual maintenance for existing onsite
rainwater harvesting systems; and,
o A more precise and prescriptive description of the requirements for annual
maintenance of the property’s post -construction BMP system.
New o rdinance language and definitions e xpand options for customers to comply with
the post -construction BMP requirement, allowing improved compliance by customers
and by the City. Ordinance changes require properties to implement good
housekeeping practices to protect the Santa Monica Bay. Thi s includes new language
for more effective and comprehensive oversight to reduce urban runoff pollution
5 of 6
associated with trash and debris containment, water feature discharges, equipment
maintenance, and surface parking areas for existing properties. Change s to mandate
rainwater harvesting on limited large parcels would increase local water supplies and
contribute to the goals established in the City’s Sustainable Water Master Plan. Lastly,
new language requires customers to accept responsibility for BMP ma intenance and
operations as recorded covenants that run with the land and to report annually on BMP
maintenance and operations in order to extend the life of BMPs, reduce costly
corrections, and improve pollution removal and treatment.
The revised Ordinan ce requires that an applicant must meet urban runoff mitigation
requirements through the use of onsite low impact development (LID) BMPs. If the
applicant demonstrates that onsite LID BMPs are infeasible , they will be allowed to
meet the requirements thro ugh the use of LID BMPs at an approved offsite
location. Traditional treat and release BMPs are no longer an option for meeting the
urban runoff mitigation requirements.
Staff from relevant City departments, including: Public Works, Planning and Communit y
Development, and the Office of Sustainability and the Environment would have a role in
implementation. The proposed changes would bring clarity to the enforcement process
and allow for more efficient and effective compliance with the NPDES Permit
requir ements . Implementation of the proposed Ordinance changes related to post -
construction BMP design requirements, inspections and installation would occur through
the existing plan check process and the associated plan checkers. No significant
change in the plan check process is anticipated. The public would be informed of
Ordinance changes through existing education and outreach activities related to
construction planning and permitting, enforcement outreach and notification, and City
community events.
Sta keholder Outreach
The revised Urban Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance was presented to the Santa
Monica Task Force on the Env ironment on June 20, 2016 and the Santa Monica
Chamber of Commerce on October 13, 2016 for review and comment . The Santa
6 of 6
Monica Task Force on the Environment discussed the update to the ordinance,
highlighting the importance of keeping pollutants out of the Santa Monica Bay while
promoting local water use and conservation. The Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce
Land Use Committee di scussed the impacts on local land use design and water
resource management.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared By: Neal Shapiro, Senior S ustainability Analyst
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. July 13, 2010 Staff Report
B. July 27, 2010 Staff Report
C. UrbanRunoff Ordinance Revision 01102017 First Reading
D. Written Comments
E. Powerpoint
Item 7-B
05/09/2017
1 of 12 Item 7-B
05/09/2017
Item 7-B
05/09/2017
2 of 12 Item 7-B
05/09/2017
Item 7-B
05/09/2017
3 of 12 Item 7-B
05/09/2017
Item 7-B
05/09/2017
4 of 12 Item 7-B
05/09/2017
1
Vernice Hankins
From:ZinaJosephs@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, May 09, 2017 4:48 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKe own Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Santa Monica City
Manager's Office
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com; elaincarol@ear thlink.net; starbaby@earthlink.net;
OMGLaw@gmail.com; nhkolhoff@yahoo.com; vflitton@earthlink.net;
fospairport@rocketmail.com; claret homasdo@aol.com; pad45@mac.com;
crdonaldson2@gmail.com; m.marlow@verizon.net
Subject:Council 5/9/17 agenda item 7-B -- suggested changes
To: City Council
From: Zina Josephs
RE: 5/9/17 agenda item 7-B -- Proposed Water Neutrality Ordinance
I support the letter below from Mary Marlow and urge the Council to make the following changes
to the proposed ordinance:
1) Require all approved yet-to-be-built and proposed projects to us e the direct offsets (retrofits)
identified by staff, beginning in June 2017 . The Downtown Environmenta l Impact Report states
that the Water Neutrality Plan will be in effect by June 2017.
2) Direct staff to implement the direct offsets using readily available software tools e.g., Excel, and
not to delay the ordinance start for software implementation or any other reason.
3) Place a moratorium on increase s in additional new water uses once all offsets are exhausted
until additional water capacity is on-line. It takes time and money to drill more wells, expand the
water treatment plant, and capture more storm water for irrigation use.
Thank you for your consideration.
Zina Josephs
******************************************************************
DATE: May 8, 2017
TO: City Council
RE: Water Neutrality Ordinance Item 7B on May 9, 2017 Agenda
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Item 7-B
05/09/2017
5 of 12 Item 7-B
05/09/2017
2
The proposed Water Neutrality Ordinance is a good start that will require significant adjustments to meet
the goal of true water neutralit y for new development. The ordinance, as written, excludes at least 3.8
million square feet including 1 ,950 housing units (homes, apart ments, condos and hotel rooms) because
the effective date of the Ordina nce would be delayed until Marc h 1, 2018. The ordinance as written,
excludes “Those applicants that have already pulled a first app lication, are in the entitlement process,
submitted plans, or received a building permit before March 1, 2018 would not be subject to compliance
with this ordinance” according to the staff report. This delay in implementation contrasts sharply
with the Downtown Environmental Impact Report, which states the Water Neutrality Plan, will be
in effect by June 2017. Please see Downtown Community Plan EIR Excerpt in Attachment A.
As of the of April 2017 Planni ng Department Report, since 2011 about 1.9 million square feet including
1,850 units of homes, apartments, condominiums, and hotel rooms as well as office and retail space have
been approved.
In the same report an additional 1,950 proposed units of housin g await approval as well as municipal,
hospital, office and retail development. These pending project s equal about 3.8 million square feet of
proposed development .
The approved (yet to be built) a nd proposed projects represent a significant increase in water use that
would not be subject to the proposed ordinance. Many approved and proposed projects significantly
increase water use by replacing parking lots, reoccupying vacan t buildings and creating denser buildings.
Yet, the current staff report omits any estimate of projected water use for eit her approved or
proposed projects.
The result of excluding both approved‐yet to be built, and proposed applications is a huge and
unaccounted for increase of water usage. The November 2015 Wat er Neutrality staff report, gives us an
idea of the increasing need for water fueled by growth. In 201 5, the pending projects (1.3 million square
feet of retail, office, cultural and hospital plus 1,802 housin g units) estimated water demand was 780
AFY (acre feet per year).
As of April 2017, proposed housing units have increased to 1,95 3 and square footage totals about 3.8
million. This massi ve water demand would not be included under the ordinance.
Four issues exacerbate the severi ty of this ‘delayed ordinance start’ loophole:
1) The water use base number in the proposed plan goes back 5 y ears, averaging those 5 years. The 20%
or more cutbacks that have been r equired of all of us recently are significantly dilute d by the inclusion of
the years before the recent cutbacks. The resulting average number used is unnecessarily favorable
to developers, reducing the effectiveness of the plan.
2) There is no current estimate of projected water use for either th e approved 1.9 million sq. ft. or
3.8 million sq. ft. of proposed projects since 2015 . The Downtown Community Plan Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) estimates potable water capacity in 2030 at 15,000 AFY (acre‐feet per year). The
2015 water demand in the EIR is listed at 13,800 AFY. The pend ing projects identif ied in the 2015 staff
report already exceed the 2020 demand projections of 14,100 AFY (13,800 +780 = 14,580). Please see
Downtown Community Plan EIR charts in Attachment A. How will the City reach water independence in
2020 if yet to be built and pending projects are not required t o use retrofits to neutralize their water
usage?
Item 7-B
05/09/2017
6 of 12 Item 7-B
05/09/2017
3
It is obvious to the casual obse rver that excluding significant known and projected development projects
water use from the one for one r etrofits in the ordinance will lead to continuing supply and demand
problems. What happens when water demand exceeds the supply?
3) There is no estimate of how many of the 60,000 available retrofits of toilets, showers, etc. to
existing properties would be required by the approved, yet to be buil t, and proposed projects. Nor, do
we know how staff calculated how many replacements are actually available. Many of the properties
counted may have already retrofi tted buildings to meet the legi slated 20% water reduction. There is no
way to know if the available ret rofits will be enough. What h appens when retrofits are exhausted?
4) In any overall strategic evaluation of Santa Monica’s ground water basin, our water independence
source, we must continue to re cognize and monitor that the ground water basin is not exclusively
used and accessible by Santa Monica. The cities of Culver City, Beverly Hills and Los Angeles can a nd
will access the ground water bas in, as is their right. Increas ed drought conditions are expected as climate
change accelerates. We can expec t legal battles over who can access and how much water can be
extracted in our future. We won’t know the limits of the groun d water basin in terms of available water
and the pace of recharge until a hydrology study is completed (no expected date given). Until all the
water availability facts are kno wn, no one can be certain of th e City meeting its water independence goal
by 2020 and beyond . Our planning efforts must be cons ervative; water is an essentia l resource and we
cannot afford to make a planning mistake.
With these unanswered questions and unknowns in mind, we urge y ou to make changes to the proposed
ordinance:
1) Require all approved yet to be built and proposed projects t o use the direct offsets (retrofits)
identified by staff, b eginning in June 2017.
2) Direct staff to implement the direct offsets using readily a vailable software tools e.g., Excel and not
delay the ordinance start for software implementation or any ot her reason.
3) Place a moratorium on increas es in additional new water uses once all offsets are exhausted until
additional water capacity is on‐line. It takes time and money to drill more wells, expand the water
treatment plant and capture more storm water for irrigation use.
We live in a semi‐arid part of t he country where water is a lim ited resource as evidenced by the current
Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage Restrictions (20%) reduction. We believe in the science of climate change
and global warming and understand that some really bad years are ahead‐‐perhaps soon and long
term. The drought we just exper ienced may well be only a harbi nger of what is to come. Our wells could
have resulting significant probl ems with lower water tables, sa lt intrusion, etc. There is a very large new
wave of development in the pipel ine. This is not a time to do a too weak water plan that needs to be, and
can be, stronger and more effective.
We need to plan and proceed conservatively to ensure the 2020 water independence goal is achieved and
we remain a sustainable City. Please start now by making choic es that will protect our water supply now
and in the future.
Respectfully,
Mary Marlow
Item 7-B
05/09/2017
7 of 12 Item 7-B
05/09/2017
4
For the Transparency Project
Attachment
Cc: Rick Cole
Susan Cline
David Martin
Attachment A
Downtown Community Plan Environmental Impact Report, April 2017
Draft Water Neutrality Ordinance DCP FEIR Section page 3.17 ‐7
On October 28, 2014 during City Counc il’s discussion of the Water S hortage Response Plan and the
Sustainable Water Master Plan, Counc il directed City Staff to look in to the feasibility of developing
requirements to offset or eliminate new water demand re lated to new development in the City of Santa Monica
and report back on what forms those requirements might take. On November 24, 2015, the Office of
Sustainability and the Environment (OSE) held a st udy session on several options for creation of a water
neutrality ordinance for new development, tenant impr ovement projects and major remodels. After review of
the options, Council directed OSE to proceed with a water neutrality ordinance that would require developers
of large projects to fund for water improvements that would offset the amount of water demand anticipated as
a result of the project. As such, adoption of a water ne utrality ordinance is expected sometime soon in 2016.
In response to this request, the pending Water Ne utrality Ordinance (Chapter 7.16.050 of the SMMC) will
require all new development within the City, including Downtown, to offset all net new water use. In lieu of
offsets, new development applicants may pay an in-lieu f ee to the City to install retrofits off-site or undertake
its own off-site retrofitting w ithin the boundaries of the City. This ordinance is anticipated to be in effect
prior to June 2017.
Item 7-B
05/09/2017
8 of 12 Item 7-B
05/09/2017
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Nikki Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 09, 2017 4:59 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKe own Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Santa Monica City
Manager's Office
Cc:elaincarol@earthlink.net; starbaby @earthlink.net; OMGLaw@gmail.com;
vflitton@earthlink.net; fospairport@rocket mail.com; clarethomasdo@aol.com; pad45
@mac.com; crdonaldson2@gmail.com; m.marlow@verizon.net; Zina Josephs
Subject:Council 5/9/17 agenda item 7-B -- Water Neutrality suggested changes
To: City Council
From: Nikki Kolhoff
RE: 5/9/17 agenda item 7-B -- Proposed Water Neutrality Ordinance
I support the letter below from Mary Marlow and ur ge the Council to make the following changes to the
proposed ordinance:
1) Require all approved yet-to-be-built and proposed projec ts to use the direct offsets (retrofits) identified by
staff, beginning in June 2017 . The Downtown Environmental Impact Re port states that the Water Neutrality
Plan will be in effect by June 2017.
2) Direct staff to implement the direct offsets using readily availa ble software tools e.g., Excel, and not to dela y
the ordinance start for software implementation or any other reason.
3) Place a moratorium on increases in additional new water uses once all offsets are exhausted until
additional water capacity is on-line. It takes time and money to drill more wells, expand the water treatment
plant, and capture more st orm water for irrigation use.
What good is the ordinance if it exempts all of the developm ent we know is in the pipeline and allows off-site
retrofits in lieu of compliance when it's not known whether those off-site retrofits are available and sufficient?
Thank you for your consideration.
Nikki Kolhoff
Sunset Park Resident
******************************************************************
DATE: May 8, 2017
TO: City Council
Item 7-B
05/09/2017
9 of 12 Item 7-B
05/09/2017
2
RE: Water Neutrality Ordinanc e Item 7B on May 9, 2017 Agen da
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
The proposed Water Neutrality Ordinance is a good start that will require significant adjustments to meet
the goal of true water neutralit y for new development. The ordinance, as written, excludes at least 3.8
million square feet including 1 ,950 housing units (homes, apart ments, condos and hotel rooms) because
the effective date of the Ordina nce would be delayed until Marc h 1, 2018. The ordinance as written,
excludes “Those applicants that have already pulled a first app lication, are in the entitlement process,
submitted plans, or received a building permit before March 1, 2018 would not be subject to compliance
with this ordinance” according to the staff report. This delay in implementation contrasts sharply
with the Downtown Environmental Impact Report, which states the Water Neutrality Plan, will be
in effect by June 2017. Please see Downtown Community Plan EIR Excerpt in Attachment A.
As of the of April 2017 Planni ng Department Report, since 2011 about 1.9 million square feet including
1,850 units of homes, apartments, condominiums, and hotel rooms as well as office and retail space have
been approved.
In the same report an additional 1,950 proposed units of housin g await approval as well as municipal,
hospital, office and retail development. These pending project s equal about 3.8 million square feet of
proposed development .
The approved (yet to be built) a nd proposed projects represent a significant increase in water use that
would not be subject to the proposed ordinance. Many approved and proposed projects significantly
increase water use by replacing parking lots, reoccupying vacant buildings and creating denser
buildings. Yet, the current staff report omits any estimate of projected water use for either approved
or proposed projects.
The result of excluding both approved‐yet to be built, and proposed applications is a huge and
unaccounted for increase of water usage. The November 2015 Wat er Neutrality staff report, gives us an
idea of the increasing need for water fueled by growth. In 201 5, the pending projects (1.3 million square
feet of retail, office, cultural and hospital plus 1,802 housin g units) estimated water demand was 780
AFY (acre feet per year).
As of April 2017, proposed housing units have increased to 1,95 3 and square footage totals about 3.8
million. This massi ve water demand would not be included under the ordinance.
Four issues exacerbate the severi ty of this ‘delayed ordinance start’ loophole:
1) The water use base number in the proposed plan goes back 5 y ears, averaging those 5 years. The 20%
or more cutbacks that have been r equired of all of us recently are significantly dilute d by the inclusion of
the years before the recent cutbacks. The resulting average number used is unnecessarily favorable
to developers, reducing the effectiveness of the plan.
2) There is no current estimate of projected water use for either the approved 1.9 million sq. ft. or
3.8 million sq. ft. of proposed projects since 2015 . The Downtown Community Plan Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) estimates potable water capacity in 2030 at 15,000 AFY (acre‐feet per year). The
2015 water demand in the EIR is listed at 13,800 AFY. The pend ing projects identif ied in the 2015 staff
report already exceed the 2020 demand projections of 14,100 AFY (13,800 +780 = 14,580). Please see
Downtown Community Plan EIR charts in Attachment A. How will the City reach water independence in
Item 7-B
05/09/2017
10 of 12 Item 7-B
05/09/2017
3
2020 if yet to be built and pending projects are not required t o use retrofits to neutralize their water
usage?
It is obvious to the casual obse rver that excluding significant known and projected development projects
water use from the one for one r etrofits in the ordinance will lead to continuing supply and demand
problems. What happens when water demand exceeds the supply?
3) There is no estimate of how many of the 60,000 available retrofits of toilets, showers, etc. to
existing properties would be required by the approved, yet to be buil t, and proposed projects. Nor, do
we know how staff calculated how many replacements are actually available. Many of the properties
counted may have already retrofi tted buildings to meet the legi slated 20% water reduction. There is no
way to know if the available ret rofits will be enough. What h appens when retrofits are exhausted?
4) In any overall strategic evaluation of Santa Monica’s ground water basin, our water independence
source, we must continue to re cognize and monitor that the ground water basin is not exclusively
used and accessible by Santa Monica. The cities of Culver City, Beverly Hills and Los Angeles can a nd
will access the ground water bas in, as is their right. Increas ed drought conditions are expected as climate
change accelerates. We can expect legal battles over who can access and how much water can be
extracted in our future. We won’t know the limits of the groun d water basin in terms of available water
and the pace of recharge until a hydrology study is completed (no expected date given). Until all the
water availability facts are kno wn, no one can be certain of th e City meeting its water independence goal
by 2020 and beyond . Our planning efforts must be cons ervative; water is an essentia l resource and we
cannot afford to make a planning mistake.
With these unanswered questions and unknowns in mind, we urge y ou to make changes to the proposed
ordinance:
1) Require all approved yet to be built and proposed projects t o use the direct offsets (retrofits)
identified by staff, b eginning in June 2017.
2) Direct staff to implement the direct offsets using readily a vailable software tools e.g., Excel and not
delay the ordinance start for software implementation or any ot her reason.
3) Place a moratorium on increas es in additional new water uses once all offsets are exhausted until
additional water capacity is on‐line. It takes time and money to drill more wells, expand the water
treatment plant and capture more storm water for irrigation use.
We live in a semi‐arid part of t he country where water is a lim ited resource as evidenced by the current
Stage 2 Water Supply Shortage Restrictions (20%) reduction. We believe in the science of climate change
and global warming and understand that some really bad years are ahead‐‐perhaps soon and long
term. The drought we just exper ienced may well be only a harbi nger of what is to come. Our wells could
have resulting significant probl ems with lower water tables, sa lt intrusion, etc. There is a very large new
wave of development in the pipel ine. This is not a time to do a too weak water plan that needs to be, and
can be, stronger and more effective.
We need to plan and proceed conservatively to ensure the 2020 water independence goal is achieved and
we remain a sustainable City. Please start now by making choic es that will protect our water supply now
and in the future.
Item 7-B
05/09/2017
11 of 12 Item 7-B
05/09/2017
4
Respectfully,
Mary Marlow
For the Transparency Project
Attachment
Cc: Rick Cole
Susan Cline
David Martin
Attachment A
Downtown Community Plan Environmental Impact Report, April 2017
Draft Water Neutrality Ordinance DCP FEIR Section page 3.17 ‐7
On October 28, 2014 during City Counc il’s discussion of the Water S hortage Response Plan and the
Sustainable Water Master Plan, Counc il directed City Staff to look in to the feasibility of developing
requirements to offset or eliminate new water demand re lated to new development in the City of Santa Monica
and report back on what forms those requirements might take. On November 24, 2015, the Office of
Sustainability and the Environment (OSE) held a st udy session on several options for creation of a water
neutrality ordinance for new development, tenant impr ovement projects and major remodels. After review of
the options, Council directed OSE to proceed with a water neutrality ordinance that would require developers
of large projects to fund for water improvements that would offset the amount of water demand anticipated as
a result of the project. As such, adoption of a water ne utrality ordinance is expected sometime soon in 2016.
In response to this request, the pending Water Ne utrality Ordinance (Chapter 7.16.050 of the SMMC) will
require all new development within the City, including Downtown, to offset all net new water use. In lieu of
offsets, new development applicants may pay an in-lieu f ee to the City to install retrofits off-site or undertake
its own off-site retrofitting w ithin the boundaries of the City. This ordinance is anticipated to be in effect
prior to June 2017.
Item 7-B
05/09/2017
12 of 12 Item 7-B
05/09/2017
Urba n Runof f Pollution Ordina nce
2017 P roposed U pda te
Dean Kubani
Assist ant Direct or of PW/Chief Sust ainabilit y O fficer
Department of Public Works
•The Urban Runoff Pollution Mitigation
O rdinance was established in 1995 by the
Santa Monica City Council
•Purpose
•control pollution associated with
rainwater, stormwater and dry -weather
runoff.
•comply with the standards and regulations
of the Clean Water Act
•Updates adopted in 2000 and 2010 to comply
with new Clean Water Act regulations
Background
Pr oposed Changes:
Introduction
Overview:
The 2017 update brings the ordinance into
compliance with the 2012 NPDES P ermit.
Pr oposed Chang es:
1.Update the definitions to reflect the changes in 2012 NPDES P ermit.
2.Corr ect challeng es for implementation and customer compliance :
§Stronger anti -lit ter , fugitive tr ash, covered receptacles language.
§Discharge associated with dr aining water f eatures and testing fire
suppr ession.
§Language f or the Marine Debris (tr ash) T otal Maximum Daily Load.
§Annual inspection requirements.
§Tr ansf er of property procedur es.
3.Mandate a new str ategy for onsite harvesting and use .
Pr oposed Changes:
Defi nit ions
Sample definitions to be updated:
•Bio -filtr ation
•Bio -retention
•Dechlorinated/Debr ominated Swimming P ool
Discharge
•Demolition
•Green Infr astructur e
•Green R oof
•Pressur e W ashing /Sidewalk Rinsing
•Stormwater Quality Design V olume (SW QDv)
•Tr ash
Pr oposed Changes:
New Ordinance Requirements
•Plastic or rubber pellets: Fa cilities which
handle, store or utiliz e plastic or rubber pellets
shall comply with provisions of the City ’s Plastic
Pe llet Management Plan, in order to meet
Fe der al guidelines.
•Swimming pools, hot tubs, spas, fountains and
water features shall dr ain to an onsite
permeable surf ace or to the sanitary sewer .
An y dr ainage to the storm dr ain s ystem must
be appr oved at least 24 hours in adv ance and
the dr ainage shall not create a saf ety issue or
public nuisance.
Pr oposed Changes:
New Ordinance Requirements
•Dischar ges fr om building fir e suppr ession
system maintenance or testing requir e a
minimum 24 -hour adv ance notice to the City ’s
Wa ter Resour ces Protection Progr am.
•Property owners with P ost -construction BMP s
shall be r esponsible for annual inspection and
maint enance , as well as f or verifying the s ystem’s
compliance through submission of the City ’s
annual compliance f orm.
•The tr ansfer of an y pr operty with P ost -
construction BMP s shall include, as a written
condition to the tr ansf er , that the tr ansf eree (new
owner) assumes full responsibility f or the onsite
BMP s.
Pr oposed Changes:
New Ordinance Requirements
•The gener ation of “fugitive” tr ash (tr ash
escaping from a unsealed container) by
runoff , wind or animal activity is prohibited.
Property owners who repeatedly violate this
provision ma y be requir ed to berm, wall or
curb areas that are gener at ing said tr ash, in
addition to providing sealed container s.
•The City shall maintain a map designating
ar eas within the City where it has been
determined that certain types of P ost -
Construction BMP s are not appr opriate, e.g.,
Pa lisades Bluff s, sites with contaminated
soils, etc.
Pr oposed Changes:
Mand ated Onsite Collect ion and Us e
New dev elopment on par cel > 15,000 sq.ft .
•Captur e, s tore and use 100% of the runof f
mitig at ion v olume fr om the dev elopment
•This r equir ement applies to new building permits,
not building permits alr eady in the r eview queue.
•This r equir ement applies to new buildings and
major or subs tantial remodels, e.g., wher e at least
50% of the building shell and interior are impacted.
Recommended Action
In tr oduce f or Fir st Re ading Or dinance to Update
and Clarify Municipal Code Chapter 7.10 -
Urban Runof f P ollution Con tr ol