1) Problems:

• land use does not equal water planning
• decision makers need education
• flooding is an element in local plans, not watershed protection; 4) councils, local governments easily influenced by the nay-sayers
• regulatory agencies often get in at the end of development/CEQA process when it is too late to change projects
• difficult to assess cumulative impacts, and consultants and planners do not always know how to do this
• planning departments and public works departments do not communicate well
• confusion on regulations for ephemeral creeks
• project mitigation impacts (e.g., lane widening) aren’t always thought through and may cause environmental problems

2) Needs:

• Knowledge – need two-way education and communication. Those working on land use don’t understand watershed planning and vice versa. Design review committees could help.
• Need to develop a toolbox for planners and for developers-- collect information, evaluate for utility, put on website
• Stormwater regulations/implementation is an area where public works and planning departments interact. The municipal regional stormwater permit could be a way to address some of these needs.
• Process – people need to know when to enter into the planning process. Need to work with State Office of Policy and Research to revise general plan requirements to include water resource elements, develop a template or model ordinance, and have creek overlay zones in general plans. A second process issue that needs a solution: having regulatory approval after CEQA presents problems for those trying to implement projects
• Regional funding through local assessments, etc.
• Green Infrastructure – We need to find ways to encourage and provide incentives for “green” building in the Bay Area, along the model of Portland and Seattle and to fund projects that demonstrate these.
• Local governments and agencies should be encouraged to adopt the Ahwahnee Principles
• GIS and mapping information
• Need to improve the clarity of regulations

3) Next Steps – Action Items:

• Kathleen Van Velsor will work with Local Government Commission to get training between planning and public works departments with the aim of demonstrating the connection between watershed protection and flood control, for example.
• Dale Hopkins will look into the status and progress of the Municipal Regional Permit at the Water Board and if and how it may be addressing some of these issues.
• Juliet Lamont will contact Sunset magazine to discuss having green projects for their Idea House. Rather than focus on cleaning up polluted creeks, the idea would be to highlight beautiful projects that are good for watersheds, e.g., rain gardens that allow water to percolate into the soil.

4) Post-Meeting Suggestion of Follow–up Actions for the Working Group:

• Create or use existing working groups to convene those who are interested in improving the awareness and performance of local planners on stormwater management issues and opportunities. The lead on this issue is Kathleen Van Velsor.
• The working group should help advise the Regional Water Quality Control Board on the development of Municipal Stormwater Permits. The lead on this is Dale Hopkins.
• This working group could be formed by simply engaging the existing land use working group of the Bay Area Water Forum in more issues of concern to the watershed community. Our role will be to add to the membership and scope of this existing forum and report back to the larger watershed collaboration group.