REP PC 017 02/21/2007 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Communication 178 Bill 52 Page 2 of 4 • The Planning Department and Department of Public Works, in consultation with the EPA and State Office of Planning, have proposed a set of amendments to bring the County into compliance with the CZARA. • Proposed amendments to Chapters 23, 25, and 27, include implementation of the CZARA by requiring construction of storm drainage system to contain and divert runoff to drywells or other approved infiltration devices and a requirement that most new developments that need "plan approval" must first obtain a "site drainage plan" approved by the Department of Public Works. • Requirements of the "site drainage plan" are contained in proposed amendments to sec. 27-20. Chapter 27 is the county's flood control code, and technically, the Planning Commission need not review changes to Chapter 27. The proposed amendments, however, are a package and have to be looked at in combination with the changes to sec. 27-20. • The Department of Public Works also has a set of amendments to Chapter 27 that is being forwarded to the Council under separate cover as Bill No. 51. • These amendments are meant to comply with requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Administration, and are mainly related to flood control issues. At the February 21, 2007 Planning Committee meeting, public testimony was presented by Charles Flaherty who expressed concern regarding the use of drywells as stormwater control and that Bill 52 is an inadequate response to a critical problem. Council Member Jacobson asked whether Ms. Ford's prior amendments to Bill No. 51 that were brought up in the meeting of the Committee on Public Works also pertain to this matter. Planning Director Chris Yuen said there is a way of de-linking the two (Bill 51 and Bill 52) and move references to Chapter 27 into Chapter 25, and deleting references to Chapter 27 from the two bills. Mr. Yuen explained that Bill 52 relates to the control of flood water and requires disposal into drywells as a sedimentation device and pollution control measure rather than a flood control measure. Mr. Yuen also noted there is little discussion about the standazds to which a developer or subdivider of land has to meet in disposing flood water resulting from a 100-year storm verses a 10-yeaz storm. Mr. Yuen stated that with respect to pollution control measures, EPA's primary concern is filtering ofJ'the first rainfall, mainly the first inch which must be filtered or disposed of into a drywell type system. Director Yuen stated that reference to Chapter 27 in this bill relates to site drainage plans an engineer would submit when commercial, industrial or apartment buildings are constructed and is not required for a subdivision. He explained that the Department of Public Works reviews site drainage plans pursuant to chapter 27 and not chapter 25. Thus, reference to "site drainage plan" could be lifted out of chapter 27 and placed into the plan approval section of chapter 25. Council Member Dominic Yagong noted that since Bill 51 was heard in the Committee on Public Works and is moving forward, shouldn't Bill 52 also move on the same track. Director PC Report No. 17