Outlook
FW: Item 6.1 - Support for Stormwater Report Certification With Corrections, Clarification, and Stronger Oversight
From City Clerk <[email protected]>
Date Mon 9/21/ 2026 7:01 AM
To Agendadesk <[email protected]>
From: brian darby
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2026 3:20 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 6.1 - Support for Stormwater Report Certification With Corrections, Clarification , and Stronger Oversight
[External Email. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Learn more) Dear Mayor Mahan and Members of the City Council:
I am writing regarding Item 6.1, the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Stormwater Management Annual Report and the accompanying resolution authorizing its certification and submission to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
After reviewing the Council agenda, staff memorandum, proposed resolution, and approximately 494- page annual-report attachment, I support adoption of the resolution so that San Jose can meet its September 30, 2026 regulatory deadline. However, I respectfully ask the Council not to treat this as a routine acceptance of an annual report.
This is a major environmental, infrastructure, fiscal, public-health , and government-accountability responsibility. The City is being asked to certify, using penalty-of-law language, that the information submitted is true, accurate, and complete to the best of the responsible official's knowledge. The report also describes approximately $88.5 million in estimated stormwater-related expenditures, hundreds of inspections and enforcement actions, hundreds of public and private stormwater facilit ies, ongoing pollut ion in local waterways, and responsibilities spread across at least ten City departments.
The report documents extensive and valuable work. It also contains inconsistencies, unresolved compliance questions, uncertain schedules, and performance measures that deserve clarification before the final version is transmitted .
My recommendation is to adopt the resolution while directing staff to correct the packet, publish the final submitted version, and return with a measurable follow-up report.
Major accomplishments
The City and its employees deserve recognition for several substantial accomplishments.
The report says San Jose reached the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit's 100% trash-load reduction requirement without offsets by December 31, 2025. This appears to have resulted from years of investment in trash-capture systems, inlet devices, inspections of private drainage areas, street sweeping, on-land controls, illegal-dumping response, public outreach, and creek-cleanup programs.
The City reports installing 38 large full-trash-capture systems consisting of 44 individual devices and 588 inlet-based devices. Together, these systems reportedly treat more than 15,300 acres, greatly exceeding the permit's stated minimum acreage requirement.
The report also describes substantial regulatory activity:
• More than 3,200 industrial and commercial inspections at 1,992 facilities; • Forty-nine actual-discharge violations and 1,121 potential-discharge violations at 708 facilities;
• Approximately 87% timely correction of industrial and commercial violations; • Responses to 297 illicit-discharge complaints;
• Approximately 92% timely correction of illicit-discharge violations; • A total of 1,959 construction inspections at 229 sites; • A total of 369 construction violations and 252 enforcement actions; and • Approximately 93% timely correction of construction violations.
San Jose also reports continued work to identify mercury and PCB sources in older industrial areas. Ten source properties and two moderate properties have reportedly been identified, with seven source properties referred to the Water Board. The City says it became the first agency in the Santa Clara Valley to clean storm-sewer lines downstream of two moderate PCB source properties.
The report also describes an Asset Management Plan covering 572 City-owned green stormwater infrastructure assets and 624 City-owned full-trash-capture assets. This is important because stormwater infrastructure provides little long-term benefit if it is installed but not inspected, maintained, repaired, and eventually replaced.
Finally, the report demonstrates that stormwater compliance is not the responsibility of one department. Environmental Services must coordinate with Public Works, Transportation, Housing, Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services, Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, Police, Fire, the Airport, the City Attorney's Office, and the City Manager's Office.
These accomplishments support certification of the report. They do not eliminate the need for careful review.
Internal inconsistencies requiring correction
Several figures and timelines do not agree across the packet or with San Jose's prior-year documents.
Some may be editing errors or differences in definitions, but they should be reconciled before the final report is submitted.
1. Number of permittees
The memorandum says the standardized annual-report template is used by all 79 permitted agencies.
The proposed resolution says it is used by 76 agencies.
The Water Board's 2022 staff report described the current regional permit as covering 79 municipalities and local agencies. The Water Board's permit-reissuance staff report therefore appears to support the memorandum's figure, but staff should confirm whether subsequent changes affected the count.
The resolution and memorandum should use the same verified number.
1. Number of FY 2024-2025 regulated projects
The current memorandum reports that 43 C.3 regulated projects were approved in FY 2024-2025. The current annual report's executive summary says 44.
More importantly, San Jose's September 2025 memorandum for the FY 2024-2025 annual report said that 45 projects were approved-41 private and four public. The City's prior memorandum is available through the FY 2024-2025 Council item.
This creates three different totals for the same fiscal year: 43, 44, and 45.
Staff should explain whether one or more projects were later reclassified, withdrawn, duplicated, or corrected. If the definition or status changed, the report should say so. Otherwise, the correct total should be inserted consistently throughout the final documents.
1. Kelley and Venetian Terrace schedules
The memorandum says the Kelley Regional Stormwater Capture Project and Venetian Terrace Stormwater Capture Project are both expected to begin construction in early 2027.
The annual report's detailed C.3 section says Venetian Terrace is expected to begin construction in early 2027, while Kelley is expected to begin construction in fall 2027.
The annual report's executive summary appears to associate fall 2027 with Venetian Terrace, adding a third version of the schedule.
The final report should provide one authoritative schedule for each project, including design completion, bidding, construction commencement, expected completion, treatment acreage, current funding, and outstanding funding needs.
1. EPA grant schedule
The City reports receiving approval for a three-year, $3.16 million EPA grant supporting development of a citywide alternative-compliance program, maintenance training and certification, and repairs to underperforming public green infrastructure.
The memorandum says funding begins in October 2027. The attachment says work will begin during FY 2026-2027. October 2027 would fall in FY 2027-2028.
Staff should clarify:
• Whether October 2027 is a typographical error;
• Whether preliminary City-funded work begins before the federal grant period; • The official award date;
• The grant-performance period;
• When federal reimbursement becomes available;
• Required matching funds;
• Deliverables and milestones; and
• What happens if federal funding is delayed or reduced.
1. Permit term
The current memorandum says the next permit is anticipated to become effective July 1, 2028 and refers to certain continuing obligations through June 30, 2028.
San Jose's prior-year memorandum said the current permit term ended June 30, 2027. The governing permit, Order No. R2-2022-0018, became effective July 1, 2022, and the Water Board also adopted Amendment R2-2023-0019. The State Water Board identifies both documents on its Phase I municipal stormwater permit page.
The City should explain whether the current permit term was formally extended, whether the 2028 date reflects an anticipated administrative continuation, or whether one of the memoranda used an incorrect date.
1. Certification dates and document status
The attachment remains labeled "DRAFT." Its certification page appears to contain September 9 and September 10, 2026 dates even though the Council meeting is scheduled for September 22.
Staff should explain:
• Whether the authorized representative has already signed the certification; • Whether that signature certifies the draft or final report; • What Council approval adds to the certification;
• Which corrections may be made following Council action; • Whether substantive corrections require additional authorization; and • Whether the final submitted report will be posted publicly.
The public should be able to compare the Council packet with the version ultimately sent to the Water Board.
Federal and state audit findings
The description of the February 2026 EPA and Water Board audit needs greater precision.
The memorandum says the audit team found that the City was fully implementing the 2022 permit, with deficiencies at two corporation yards.
The annual report's executive summary says the municipal-operations program only "partially satisfied" permit expectations. The detailed C.2 section says deficiencies were found in corporation yard best management practices, that a corrective plan covering all City corporation yards was submitted on August 11, 2026, and that ongoing compliance will be evaluated through FY 2026-2027 inspections.
These statements may describe different levels of the audit-the overall MS4 program, a particular permit provision, and specific facilities-but the distinction matters.
The City should provide the Council with a table showing:
• Every audit finding;
• The permit provision involved;
• Facility or program involved;
• Potential environmental consequence;
• Required corrective action;
• Responsible department;
• Original deadline;
• Current status;
• Evidence of completion; and
• How effectiveness will be verified.
The complete audit report should be linked in the Council packet if it is public. If it is not public, staff should provide the most complete legally permissible summary.
The City should also clarify the difference between its own characterization of "minor deficiencies" and the regulators' determination that the municipal-operations program only partially satisfied expectations.
Green stormwater infrastructure: only 31% initially compliant One of the most concerning performance figures is the initial compliance rate for privately maintained stormwater treatment systems.
The City inspected 163 of 696 regulated project sites, or approximately 23% of its inventory. This exceeds the permit's minimum annual inspection percentage.
However, only 31% of inspected sites were compliant at the initial inspection. Based on the rounded percentage, that means approximately 51 sites were initially compliant and approximately 112 were initially noncompliant.
The report identifies common deficiencies including:
• Missing or damaged vegetation;
• Sediment accumulation;
• Insufficient mulch;
• Invasive or nuisance vegetation;
• Obstructed inlets and outlets;
• Trash and debris;
• Erosion;
• Structural repairs; and
• Irrigation problems.
These are not simply appearance or landscaping issues. They may interfere with the ability of a treatment system to capture, filter, retain, or infiltrate stormwater as designed.
The current report also says the rate of noncompliance is similar to previous years. San Jose's prior year memorandum reported 37% initial compliance among 161 inspected sites. The new 31% figure therefore appears to be a decline of six percentage points rather than an improvement.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency emphasizes that green infrastructure must be correctly installed and maintained throughout its useful life to function as designed. EPA also notes that municipalities generally maintain installations on public property while residents or property owners commonly maintain installations on private property. EPA's guidance is available on its Green Infrastructure Installation, Operation and Maintenance page.
I respectfully recommend that the Council request:
• Five years of initial compliance rates;
• Final compliance rates following corrective action;
• Number of cases unresolved at fiscal-year end;
• Median and average days required to obtain compliance; • Number of repeat violations;
• Number and type of escalated enforcement actions;
• Compliance rates by facility type;
• Compliance rates for owner-maintained versus contractor-maintained systems; • Number of systems with structural rather than routine landscaping deficiencies ; • Criteria used to select the sites inspected;
• Number of reinspection visits;
• Staffing level and caseload per inspector; and
• A measurable plan for improving initial compliance.
Inspecting 23% of the inventory satisfies the numerical inspection requirement. It does not by itself demonstrate that the operation and maintenance program is effective.
When approx imately two-thirds of inspected sites fail the initial inspection, the City should consider whether it needs better owner notifi cation, clearer maintenance manuals, annual owner self certification, qualified-contractor lists, earlier intervention, more frequent risk-based inspections, stronger enforcement of repeat violations, or some combination of those measures.
The goal should be to improve first-inspection compliance, not merely obtain compliance after deficiencies have persisted long enough to be discovered.
Meaning of "100% trash-load reduction "
San Jose should be recogn ized for reaching the permit 's 100% trash-load-reduct ion requirement without offsets. However, the term needs careful public explanation .
It does not necessarily mean that San Jose has physically eliminated all trash from streets, storm drains, creeks, rivers, or the Bay.
The City's FY 2024-2025 memorandum reporte d 97.7% trash-load reduction without offsets and more than 100% after applying cleanup and Direct Discharge offsets. The new report says the City achieved 100% without offsets by December 31, 2025.
That is an important regulatory milestone . At the same time, the new report documents :
• Continuing illegal dumping;
• Underperforming on-land assessment areas;
• Private parcels needing corrective action;
• Continued creek cleanups;
• Continuing Direct Discharge work;
• Approximately 1,701 tons of material removed; and
• Additional installation and maintenance of trash-capture devices.
The final public explanation should distingui sh among :
• Regulatory percentage calculated under the permit;
• Acreage treated by full-trash-capture systems;
• Modeled or credited load reduction;
• Observed on-land trash conditions;
• Material captured before it reaches waterways;
• Material removed after it has accumulated in or near waterways; and • Actual water-quality and habitat outcomes.
Otherwise, residents may reasonably but incorrectly interpret "100% reduction" as meaning there is no longer a physical trash problem.
Trash-capture and asset counts
The report cites several totals:
• Thirty-eight large full-trash-capture systems;
• Forty-four individual large devices;
• Five hundred eighty-eight inlet-based devices;
• Six hundred twenty-four full-trash-capture assets in the Asset Management Plan; and • More than 15,300 treated acres.
Forty-four large devices plus 588 inlet devices would equal 632 devices, not 624.
There may be a legitimate explanation. The Asset Management Plan may include only City-owned assets, while another count may include additional devices, installations completed after the inventory date, or equipment classified differently. Nevertheless, the report should explain the difference.
The prior-year memorandum listed 30 large systems consisting of 36 underground devices and 552 inlet-based devices, while its Asset Management Plan listed 588 full-trash-capture assets. The year-to year movement should be reconciled in an inventory bridge showing:
• Beginning inventory;
• New installations;
• Retired or replaced assets;
• Reclassified assets;
• Privately owned assets;
• City-owned assets; and
• Ending inventory.
Storm-drain medallions
The executive summary says approximately 12,000 new "No Dumping-Drains to Bay" medallions were installed and approximately 76% of the City's storm-drain inlets have legible messaging.
The detailed section provides a more qualified calculation. It says:
• There are approximately 35,980 municipally maintained inlets; • 21,633, or 60%, either received new markers or were confirmed legible; • 2,488, or 7%, were confirmed illegible;
• 11,654 had not yet been assessed; and
• The City estimated that half of the unassessed group-approximately 5,827 inlets-would be legible.
Therefore, the reported 76% appears to combine confirmed observations with an estimate about unassessed inlets.
That may be acceptable planning methodology, but the executive summary should not present 76% as though every inlet had been observed. It should state that 60% were newly marked or confirmed legible and that the 76% figure includes estimated legibility among unassessed inlets.
Direct Discharge Trash Control Program
The report says the City conducted 3,786 cleanups and removed approximately 1,701 tons through Direct Discharge efforts.
The tonnage history is substantial:
• FY 2016-2017: 581 tons;
• FY 2017-2018: 890 tons;
• FY 2018-2019: 523 tons;
• FY 2019-2020: 446 tons;
• FY 2020-2021: 349 tons;
• FY 2021-2022: 432 tons;
• FY 2022-2023: 1,289 tons;
• FY 2023-2024: 1,645 tons;
• FY 2024-2025: 1,884 tons; and
• FY 2025-2026: 1,701 tons.
The most recent total represents a reduction of 183 tons, or approximately 9.7%, from the preceding year. That could indicate improving conditions, changes in cleanup frequency, changes in accounting, differences in material classification, movement of encampments, or other factors. The available totals alone do not establish the cause.
Tonnage is an activity or output measure. A high tonnage can demonstrate an extensive cleanup effort, but it can also indicate that large quantities continue to accumulate.
The Council should ask:
• What counts as one cleanup?
• Can several operations at the same location be counted separately? • How much material was ordinary litter, bulky waste, abandoned property, hazardous material, vegetation, sediment, or another category?
• How many sites required repeated cleanup?
• What was the cost per operation, location, and ton?
• How long did locations remain clear?
• Which measures reduced reaccumulation?
• How much material was prevented from entering waterways rather than removed afterward?
• How do quarterly visual assessments demonstrate improvement? • What were the water-quality outcomes?
• How were sanitation, outreach, storage, housing, and vehicle-related pollution prevention integrated into the program?
Approximately $34.9 million is attributed to Provision C.17, discharges associated with unsheltered homeless populations. This equals approximately 39.5% of the entire reported stormwater expenditure.
Because of the size of that amount, the Council should receive a cost breakdown identifying spending on:
• Sanitation;
• Trash collection;
• Waterway cleanup;
• Outreach;
• Housing-related services;
• Vehicle-pollution prevention;
• Portable restrooms and handwashing;
• Structural barriers;
• Security or police services;
• Contractors;
• Administration; and
• Long-term prevention.
This information should be presented without blaming people experiencing homelessness for the broader economic, housing, behavioral-health, and service-system failures that contribute to unsheltered living. The City still has a legal obligation to prevent trash, sewage, chemicals, and other pollutants from entering waterways, but it should carry out that responsibility lawfully, respectfully, and in coordination with housing and social services.
Industrial and commercial enforcement
The industrial and commercial inspection program covers more than 8,500 businesses. During FY 2025-2026, the City conducted more than 3,200 inspections at 1,992 facilities and documented 49 actual-discharge violations and 1, 121 potential-discharge violations at 708 facilities.
The reported timely-correction rate improved to approximately 87%, but that also means approximately 13% were not corrected within ten business days or another accepted timeframe.
The Council should ask:
• How many violations remained open at year-end?
• How old were the oldest unresolved violations?
• How many facilities were repeat violators?
• How many received administrative citations, penalties, or other escalated enforcement? • How are "actual" and "potential" discharge violations defined? • Can one facility account for multiple violations?
• Are facilities with recurring violations inspected more frequently? • What target does the City have for improving the 87% timely-correction rate? Illicit discharges and construction sites
The City responded to 297 illicit-discharge complaints and reports approximately 92% timely correction. The Council should request the number and status of the remaining cases, repeat locations, common discharge types, and whether response outcomes can be reported by watershed or Council district.
At construction sites, 1,959 inspections identified 369 violations but produced 252 enforcement actions. This difference may be legitimate if a single enforcement action covered multiple violations or if some conditions were corrected immediately without formal action. The report should explain the relationship between violations and enforcement actions.
The Council should also ask whether the 93% timely-correction rate represents correction of individual violations, resolution of cases, or compliance by project site.
Mercury and PCB controls
The City reports identifying ten source properties and two moderate properties associated with mercury or PCB contamination. Seven source properties have been referred to the Water Board.
The Council should request:
• Status of the three source properties not referred;
• Status of the two moderate properties;
• Responsible party for each outstanding location;
• Required cleanup or control measure;
• Enforcement or referral milestones;
• Monitoring results;
• Estimated pollutant-load reduction; and
• Expected completion dates.
The demolition-screening numbers also require explanation. San Jose's prior-year memorandum said staff reviewed 29 demolition permits and identified three potentially applicable structures. The current report says staff reviewed approximately 1,100 demolition permit applications, identified four potentially applicable structures, and found one meeting the relevant threshold.
The change from 29 to approximately 1,100 may reflect a broader screening process-for example, all applications screened initially versus only potentially applicable demolition permits receiving detailed review. If so, the report should explain the change in methodology so the figures are not mistaken for a dramatic increase in demolition activity.
Firefighting foam and emergency discharges
The report says the Fire Department upgraded to a GreenScreen-certified foam described as organic, nontoxic, PFAS-free, and biodegradable, and discontinued legacy foams that were potentially more environmentally harmful.
This may be a positive change, but these terms should be used precisely. "PFAS-free," "biodegradable," "organic," "GreenScreen certified," and "nontoxic" are not automatically equivalent to environmentally harmless under every exposure condition.
The Council should ask for:
• Product name and safety data;
• Applicable certification;
• Definition and testing threshold used for "PFAS-free"; • Inventory and disposal status of legacy foam;
• Training requirements;
• Containment and recovery procedures;
• Notification procedures following emergency releases; and • Monitoring of receiving waters when a significant discharge occurs.
Financial reporting and the prior forecast
The financial information deserves particular attention.
The new report gives FY 2025-2026 estimated expenditures of $88.483 million, compared with approximately $123.982 million reported for FY 2024-2025. That is a decrease of approximately $35.499 million, or 28.6%.
The new report projects FY 2026-2027 costs of $92.561 million, an increase of approximately $4.078 million, or 4.6%.
The two largest current program areas are:
• C.17, discharges associated with unsheltered populations: approximately $34.931 million, or 39.5% of the total; and
• C.10, trash-load reduction and assessment: approximately $27 .140 million, or 30. 7%.
Together, C.10 and C.17 account for approximately 70.2% of reported stormwater-program costs.
There is an additional forecasting issue. San Jose's prior-year memorandum estimated that FY 2025- 2026 stormwater spending would reach approximately $132.402 million. The current report now estimates $88.483 million for that same year.
That is approximately $43.919 million, or 33.2%, below the prior projection.
The current memorandum explains that capital spending for C.3 and C.17 declined, but the difference is large enough to warrant a formal reconciliation.
The Council should request a table comparing the prior forecast with the current estimate by permit provision and cost category, showing:
• Projects postponed or canceled;
• Capital spending shifted into later years;
• Grant delays;
• Changes in program scope;
• Changes in accounting methodology;
• Budgeted but unspent amounts;
• Actual expenditures;
• Encumbrances;
• Personnel and overhead;
• Consultant and contractor costs;
• Operation and maintenance;
• Land costs;
• Construction costs; and
• Changes in which departmental costs are attributed to stormwater compliance.
The report describes its figures as "budgeted and/or actual" and "estimated." Combining those categories may satisfy the regional framework, but it limits the Council's ability to evaluate performance and return on investment.
Future reports should separate:
• Adopted budget;
• Revised budget;
• Actual expenditure;
• Encumbrance;
• One-time capital cost;
• Recurring operation and maintenance;
• Grant-funded expenditure;
• General Fund contribution;
• Enterprise-fund contribution;
• Bond funding; and
• Unfunded need.
The Council should also begin connecting costs with results. Useful measures could include cost per inspection, cost per corrected violation, cost per maintained asset, cost per treated acre, cost per cleanup, cost per ton removed, and-most importantly-whether environmental conditions improved.
These calculations should be presented with appropriate cautions. For example, cost per ton removed should not become an incentive to collect more tonnage rather than prevent accumulation.
Alternative compliance and in-lieu fees
The memorandum says the City intends to pilot an alternative-compliance program, particularly for private housing development. A developer could construct required stormwater treatment where feasible and potentially pay an in-lieu fee for the remaining obligation.
This could be a useful tool for constrained infill or affordable-housing sites. A well-designed regional project can sometimes provide a greater water-quality benefit than several small facilities.
However, an in-lieu fee should not become a routine method of approving development without timely and equivalent mitigation.
Before adopting such a program, the Council should require:
• A legally defensible fee methodology;
• A clear standard for equivalent or greater water-quality benefit; • Watershed-based project priorities;
• Deadlines for spending collected fees;
• Separate accounting;
• Public identification of funded projects;
• Full life-cycle operation and maintenance costs;
• Rules against double counting;
• Provisions for disadvantaged communities;
• Refund or escalation rules if projects are not delivered; • Annual reporting of fee revenue and project completion; and • Independent evaluation of environmental results.
The City already explains that the regional permit allows certain high-density, smart-growth, and affordable-housing projects to use alternative compliance methods on its Stormwater Management Measures page. The proposed broader program should clearly distinguish existing permit-authorized alternatives from any new citywide in-lieu fee.
Asset management and deferred maintenance
The Asset Management Plan is a positive development, but it should function as a management and budgeting tool rather than only an inventory.
The regional permit requires information on asset category, design, drainage area, location, condition, and operation and maintenance need. It allows risk-based condition assessment to help agencies prioritize limited resources. The governing requirements are contained in the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit.
The Council should receive an annual summary showing:
• Number of assets in good, fair, poor, and failed condition; • Number not inspected on schedule;
• Highest-risk assets;
• Deferred maintenance;
• Cost to restore deficient assets;
• Average age;
• Estimated remaining useful life;
• Assets requiring repeated emergency maintenance;
• Unfunded replacement needs;
• Responsible department; and
• Whether each asset has a funded life-cycle maintenance plan.
EPA's guidance emphasizes that green infrastructure must be maintained throughout its lifespan. That principle should apply equally to public and private systems.
Climate adaptation
The report refers the reader to a countywide Climate Change Adaptation Report contained in the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's annual report.
Regional cooperation is appropriate because watersheds and climate impacts cross city boundaries.
However, Councilmembers also need a San Jose-specific summary identifying:
• Assets vulnerable to extreme rainfall;
• Creek and river flooding;
• Rising groundwater;
• Erosion and sediment;
• Sea-level rise where applicable;
• Wildfire debris;
• Pump-station vulnerability;
• Power failures;
• Outfall vulnerability;
• Trash-device capacity;
• Green-infrastructure performance during extreme events; • Emergency access limitations;
• Effects on disadvantaged communities;
• Priority capital projects;
• Estimated costs; and
• Funding gaps.
The countywide report should be linked directly in the final City submission. Incorporating a document by reference is not helpful if the reader cannot readily locate it.
Public accessibility and comparison with other municipalities The 494-page attachment may be necessary for regulatory compliance, but it is not an effective public communication document by itself.
Other municipalities provide useful examples of greater accessibility.
New York City posts its draft MS4 annual report, a public presentation, a dedicated email address, and a defined public-comment period on its MS4 program page.
Philadelphia maintains a public archive of annual stormwater and sewer reports covering many years on its Regulatory Reporting page.
The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago publishes stormwater annual reports together with watershed plans, project descriptions, and water-quality information on its Stormwater Plans and Reports page.
Portland provides a plain-language explanation of what its MS4 contains and why untreated stormwater can affect rivers and streams on its municipal stormwater page.
San Jose should retain its detailed regulatory filing while also producing a shorter public performance report containing:
• Five-year trend charts;
• Plain-language definitions;
• Maps;
• Watershed-level information;
• Initial and final compliance rates;
• Open and repeat violations;
• Audit findings;
• Corrective-action status;
• Asset-condition ratings;
• Spending by source and program;
• Deferred maintenance;
• Prior commitments and current status;
• Environmental outcome measures; and
• Goals for the next fiscal year.
The current report is strong at documenting activities. It is less effective at demonstrating long-term outcomes.
Inspections, cleanups, outreach events, devices installed, and notices issued are useful output measures. The Council also needs outcome measures, such as:
• Improved initial compliance;
• Fewer repeat violations;
• Reduced pollutant loading;
• Fewer recurring dumping locations;
• Improved asset condition;
• Reduced maintenance backlog;
• Cleaner waterways over time; and
• Better results per public dollar.
Recommended Council action
I respectfully recommend that the Council:
1. Adopt the resolution so San Jose meets its September 30, 2026 deadline.
2. Direct staff to correct or explain, before submission:
o The 76-versus-79 permittee count;
o The three different FY 2024-2025 regulated-project totals; o The Kelley and Venetian Terrace schedules;
o The EPA grant start date;
o The current permit term;
o The trash-capture asset totals;
o The storm-drain marker estimate;
o The certification dates; and
o The differing descriptions of the February 2026 audit.
3. Require staff to publish the final submitted report and a list of changes made after the Council packet was released.
4. Require publication of the EPA and Water Board audit report or a detailed public summary.
5. Require a corrective-action tracker identifying responsible departments, deadlines, status, and verification.
6. Require a follow-up on the approximately 69% of inspected regulated-project sites that were not compliant initially, including final compliance, repeat violations, enforcement, and time to correction.
7. Establish a measurable goal for improving first-inspection compliance.
8. Require reporting of both initial and final compliance rates across industrial, commercial, illicit discharge, construction, and post-construction programs.
9. Direct staff to reconcile the prior $132.402 million forecast with the current $88.483 million estimate.
10. Require actual, budgeted, estimated, encumbered, capital, and recurring costs to be reported separately.
11. Require stormwater spending to be connected with measurable environmental and compliance outcomes.
12. Require a public inventory bridge reconciling all green-infrastructure and trash-capture asset counts.
13. Require annual reporting of asset condition, deferred maintenance, useful life, and unfunded repair or replacement needs.
14. Require a San Jose-specific climate-adaptation summary.
15. Require safeguards, separate accounting, watershed priorities, and delivery deadlines before establishing an alternative-compliance or in-lieu fee program.
16. Develop a public stormwater dashboard with watershed and Council-district information where appropriate.
17. Refer the most significant audit, financial, enforcement, maintenance, and performance issues to the appropriate Council committee for a more detailed public discussion.
18. Return before the next annual certification with progress on these directions.
Conclusion
I support certification and timely submission of San Jose's FY 2025-2026 Stormwater Management Annual Report. Failure to submit the required report would not solve the concerns described above and could expose the City to unnecessary regulatory risk.
At the same time, certification should mean more than acknowledging receipt of a 494-page attachment.
The City appears to have made meaningful progress in reaching the regulatory trash-reduction requirement, installing capture infrastructure, inspecting regulated activities, addressing mercury and PCB sources, improving firefighting practices, and establishing an asset-management system. City employees, nonprofit partners, volunteers, businesses, and property owners contributing to this work deserve recognition.
The documents also show that significant challenges remain:
• Only 31% initial compliance among inspected regulated-project sites; • Unresolved corporation-yard deficiencies ;
• Continuing industrial, commercial, illicit-discharge, and construction violations; • Large amounts of material still being removed from waterways; • Major costs associated with direct-discharge and trash programs; • Unclear relationships between spending and outcomes;
• Conflicting project and grant schedules;
• Unreconciled inventory totals;
• A large difference between the prior spending forecast and the current estimate; • Climate and maintenance obligations extending well beyond one fiscal year; and • Several inconsistencies within documents presented for certification.
Approving the resolution while requiring corrections, public disclosure, measurable targets, and stronger follow-up would support the Environmental Services Department's work while preserving the Council's oversight responsibility.
Thank you for considering these comments and for treating stormwater management as the major environmental and infrastructure responsibility that the City's own report demonstrates it to be.
Sincerely,
Brian Darby
San Jose, California
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.