HomeMy WebLinkAbout061708 CBPA Phase ICBPA Phase 1
Compliance Strategy
Department of Planning
Environmental Management Center
Clay Bernick
June 17, 2008
1 6/17/08
Background
June 2007 –CBLAB finds City noncompliant in Phase
?
1 CBPA implementation; must comply with 9
recommendations by July 1, 2008
June 2007 to Present –City staff have been working
?
with DCBLA staff to develop strategy that will assure
full Phase 1 compliance with State law and regulations
June 11, 2008 –Planning Commission Public Hearing
?
on recommendations; approved recommendations with
exception of swimming pool revisions which would
remove exemption from calculation as impervious
area; desires to consider further at July 9, 2008 Public
Hearing
June 24, 2008 –City Council vote on package
?
scheduled
2 6/17/08
Background
9 Total Recommendations
?
Recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 4
?
involve City Code revisions
Recommendations 5-9 involve
?
changes to City procedures and
policies
3 6/17/08
Alternatives
Approve the entire package on June 24 as
?
recommended by Staff to meet July 1, 2008
deadline of the Commonwealth and to
achieve full Phase 1 compliance
Disapprove or defer action on all or portions
?
of the entire package, failing to meet the
July 1, 2008 deadline of the Commonwealth
and to be found noncompliant with Phase 1
4 6/17/08
RECOMMENDATION 1
For consistency with Section 9
?
VAC 10-20-120-3 of the Regulations
and Section 106.A (17) of the City’s
Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Ordinance, the City must require
and ensure compliance with
maintenance agreements for all
structuralstormwater BMPs.
5 6/17/08
Response
Best management practice, structural. A
?
best management practice that requires the
design and certification of a licensed design
professional.
Where structural the best management
?
practices are utilized require regular or
periodic maintenance in order to continue
their functions, such maintenance shall be
ensured by the City through a maintenance
agreement with the owner or developer or
the owner shall certify yearly that
maintenance has been accomplished.
6 6/17/08
RECOMMENDATION 2
For consistency with Section 9 VAC 10-
?
20-150 C 1 of the Regulations, the City
must amend Appendix D, Section 5 (c)
(Stormwater Management) to include the
six required findings that must be
considered when reviewing or approving
waivers to the stormwater management
requirements under Section 9 VAC 10-
20-120 8 of the Regulations.
7 6/17/08
Response
Variances. The applicant may submit a written request for a variance from any requirement of this
?
ordinance. The director may grant a variance in accordance withthe following criteria:
(1)The variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief. Economic
?
hardship is not sufficient reason to grant a variance from the requirements of this ordinance; and
(2)The granting of the variance will not:
?
(i)Increase the flow rate of stormwater runoff;
?
(ii)Have an adverse impact on a wetland, channel, water body or,
?
upstream and/or downstream of a receiving body of water;
?
(iii)Contribute to the degradation of water quality;
?
(iv)Be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or adversely
?
affect
the character of adjoining neighborhoods; or
?
(v)Otherwise impair attainment of the objectives of this ordinance.
?
Variances in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation areas shall also meet the following additional
?
criteria:
(1)The granting of the variance will not confer upon the applicant any special privileges that are
?
denied to other property owners who are subject to the provisions of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation
Area Ordinance and who are similarly situated;
(2)The granting of the variance is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Chesapeake Bay
?
Preservation Area Ordinance and is not of substantial detriment to water quality; and
(3)The request for a variance is not based upon conditions or circumstances that are self-created
?
or self-imposed.
8 6/17/08
RECOMMENDATION 3
For consistency with Section 9 VAC 10-20-120 8,
?
the City must ensure that the Stormwater runoff
criteria of the City’s CBP ordinance are consistent
with the requirements of the Virginia Stormwater
Management Law and Handbook. To accomplish
this, the City should revise its CBP to correct its
pre-development phosphorus load, require a
Stormwater plan be submitted that provides the
documentation of compliance with the Stormwater
quality requirements, appropriate engineering
calculations and that details the appropriate
Stormwater quality mitigation.
9 6/17/08
Response
For any development or redevelopment,
stormwater runoff shall be controlled by the
use of best management practices that
achieve the following results:
For development, the postdevelopment
?
nonpoint source pollution runoff load shall
not exceed the predevelopment load based
total phosphorus loading
on average
(FVA) of 2.72 pounds per acre per year
and an equivalent
impervious cover (IVA)
of twenty five (25) percent
10 6/17/08
RECOMMENDATION 4
For consistency with Section 9
?
VAC 10-20-120 8, the City must
ensure that all impervious surfaces
are calculated for development and
redevelopment projects, to include
the surface area of pools.
11 6/17/08
Response
Calculations involving the percentage
?
of site area under impervious cover
shall be based upon the lot area
landward of mean low water and
not
wetlands. Impervious cover shall
include the water surface area of a
swimming pool.
12 6/17/08
RECOMMENDATION 5
For consistency with Section 9
?
VAC 10-20-130 5 (4) of the
Regulations, the City must require
revegetation of the buffer area as
part of permitted tidal wetland
activities.
13 6/17/08
Response
All erosion control projects will be
?
required to provide the following
CBPA requirement:
Replacement of all trees removed
?
Revegetation of 5x the project length
?
anywhere within the 100-foot RPA
buffer area
Not infringe on the integrity of the
?
project
14 6/17/08
RECOMMENDATION 6
For consistency with Section 9 VAC 10-
?
20-105 of the Regulations and Section
105 of the City’s Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Area Ordinance, the City
must require site-specific analysis of
onsite water bodies to determine
whether such water bodies are perennial
and adjust the Resource Protection Area
boundaries as necessary.
15 6/17/08
Response
All new stream delineations and
?
corrections shall be done in
compliance with the Guidance
provided by CBLAB
16 6/17/08
RECOMMENDATION 7
For consistency with Section 9
?
VAC 10-20-150 C of the
Regulations, and Section 110 (C) of
the City’s ordinance, the City must
work with their Bay Board to
provide both training and staff
analysis that addresses the
required findings for approving
RPA exception requests
17 6/17/08
Response
Quarterly training
?
Staff recommendations in the staff
?
reports as to the 6 requirements
18 6/17/08
RECOMMENDATION 8
The City’s Bay Board must cease
?
approving multiple variance
requests on individual properties,
unless the requests clearly meet all
required findings as outlined under
9 VAC 10-20-150 C 1 of the
Regulations.
19 6/17/08
Response
Training
?
CBPAB condition—”It is the opinion of
?
the Board that the approval granted is
the maximum impervious cover the
site can support.”
20 6/17/08
Recommendation 9
To fully comply with Section 9 VAC
?
10-20-150 C 1 c of the Regulations
in order to ensure that water quality
is not degraded by approved
variance requests, the City should
establish a system of formal
oversight for required mitigation
for all approved variance requests.
21 6/17/08
Response
The planning process and the new
?
SW agreements will provide the
minimum oversight needed.
22 6/17/08
Questions ?
23 6/17/08