HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10142003 - SD3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS "' •
FROM: FINANCE COMMITTEE
DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2003
SUBJECT": REPORT ON FUNDING STRATEGIES FOR THE NEW CLEAN WATER REQUIREMENTS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECONIMMATION(S)7 7CKGROUNI)AND JUSTIFICATION
I. Recommended Action:
A. DIRECT staff from Public Works,Community Development,Building Inspection and Environmental Health
to analyze the work products and activities required to comply with the new clean water requirements
specified in the amendment to the County's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit, and then estimate the resultant costs and resources. This will be the short-term costs and staffing
needs over the next to 2 to 3 years.
B. DIRECT staff to determine which work products and activities are related to land development and
ACKNOWLEDGE that the staff work performed in analyzing those work products and activities should be
paid by development fees. Each department will track their costs to complete this initial analysis.
Reimbursement of development related costs will be through an increase in development fees,once the total
short-term costs are determined.
t -.
Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE:
.RECOMMENDATION OF COUNT„Y ADMINISTRATOR
RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
:-APPROVE THER
SIGNATURES :\,"_
1-1
ACTION OP BOAN APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X
October 1.4, 2()03a
*See attached addendm for Board action*
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT Notre- )
AYES: NOES: l hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy
ABSENT: _ ABSTAIN: of an action taken and entered on the minutes of
RMA-:sg
Gi:,Ga.A ,'Mitrii\b,,2oe3\ReF�ii on CW Funding Strategy.dac the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
Attachment
Orlg,2Nvt Public Works(Admin Svcs)
cuntact: Mites Avalon('J 0-2203)
o: J.Sweeten,County Administrator
M.Shiu.Public Warks ATTESTED: October 14, 2003
Avalon,Pttblic,Sood oControl Sweeten,G.CannaughtomFloJohn Sten Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
G.
D.Barry,CDD
C.Bsltadano,BID and County Administrator
K.Stuart,HHD
N'PDES Task Force Members
S.Marohesi County Counsel
T.Encs,CACI A"r+�.s
Byk l; `''f f f ` .. , Deputy
SUBJECT: REPORT ON FUNDING STRATEGIES FOR THE NEW CLEAN WATER REQUIREMENTS
DATE: OCTOBER 14, 2003
PAGE: 2
C. ACKNOWLEDGE that a coordinator position will need to be created in the Public Works Department to
coordinate and assist the other Departments in meeting the timeline for submittal of work products identified
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and to manage the overall transition process. The cost of the
coordinator could be reimbursed through an increase in developer fees.
D. REQUEST the Finance Committee to continue to work with staff on the short-term and long-term costs to
comply with the new clean water requirements and develop funding strategies and address other related issues
as outlined in the attached September 17,2003 memo to the Committee and to bring recommendations back
to the Beard for consideration in three months.
II. Fiscal Impact:
County staff will be involved in developing the costs and resources necessary to comply with the new clean water
requirements. County costs will be minimized if development fees are increased to cover staff costs.
Ill. Reasons for Recommendations and Backeround:
On June 10, 2003 the Board of Supervisors accepted a report from the Transportation, Water, and
Infrastructure Committee, prepared by the Flood Control District, on the amendment to Contra Costa
County's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit. The Board also directed staff to
develop a strategy and recommendations to fund the costs and determine staffing needs to implement the activities
required by the new permit amendment, and referred this to the Finance Committee for review.
On September 22, 2003 the Finance Committee considered a report from Public Works, Community
Development,Building Inspection, and Environmental Health in a memo dated September 17, 2003, a copy of
which is attached to this Board Order. The Finance Committee recommends approving the Phase One
recommendations in the attached report and as outlined above. The information gathered from these
recommendations will be used to develop further recommendations for funding the new clean water requirements.
The Finance Committee would like to continue working with staff on identifying opportunities to fund the new
clean water requirements and bring those recommendations back to the Board at a later date. Some of these
recommendations are included in the Phase Two recommendations in the attached report.
IV. Consenuences of Neeative Action:
The recommendations from the Finance Committee would not be implemented and the County would not meet its
schedule for implementing the changes required of the new clean water requirements.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM SD.3
)Ctobe 141 2003
The Board of Supervisors considcrct tl.e epoa on f0t.ding strategies for the New Clean Water
Requirements by the Finance Conlmi'l ee.
Mitch Avalon, Deputy Director, P:,t:lic `V•J,)rks presented the staff report and recommendations.
After Board discussion, Supervise: ;-ccii-.csted that in addition to the recommendations
presented today, include an in regard to the Redevelopment area.
Supervisor Greenberg then ncfv f t;e i econbn,ec;ations and the Board took the following
action:
o DIRECTED staff fronn I r;hli `J ; ics, 'o:.1n]L,nity Development, Building Inspection and
Environmental I-Iealti, to an,,y/,c i:e «toric proc,,icts and activities required to comply
with the new clean waterspecified in the amendment to the County's
National Pollutant Discharl-c Systc,n (NPDES)permit, and then estimate the
resultant costs and resoLircc;s. h s wil? be !lie snort-term costs staffing needs over the
next 2 to 3 years;
a DIRECTED staff to deter::1��c wi'.ch ,vork products and activities are related to land
development and
o ACKNOWLEDGED that ',c st« won K pe, or i!ed in analyzing those work products and
activities should be pard secs. Mach Department will track their costs to
complete this initial analysisof development related costs will be
through an increase in devclopt;lu.,t `'ccs, once the total short-term costs are determined;
o ACKNOWLEDGED that a co�;:-di:.ator position will meed to be created in the Public
Works Department to coordlinial c a, i Assist the other Departments in meeting the timeline
for submittal of work prod:_:c!s id;f-ti"c(i by t,e Regional Water Quality Control Board
and to manage the ovc-alltr« ai ocess. The cost of the coordinator could be
reimbursed through a-. i;_. -c,,:sc i:. c€cve'o-0 ees.
o REQUESTED the Finance to continl e to work with staff on the short-term
and long-term costs to cc,-, y wit:? the ncyv cic�in water requirement and develop funding
strategies and address as o 41 ined in the attached September 17, 2003
memo to the Committee to is c . cic .>,, iten.ired list of requirements in regard to
Redevelopment and to b i:.g : . :, ;rc:;r':ations rack to the Board for consideration in
three months.
Al
51 5
A,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Contra Costa County
255 Glacier Drive
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 313-2000
GATE: September 17, 2003
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: Maurice M. Shiu, Public Works Director
Dennis Barry, Community Development Director
Carlos Baltodano, Building Inspection Director _
Ken Stuart, Environmental Health Director
SUBJECT: Funding Strategy on the New Clean Water Requirements
On June 10, 2003, the Board of Supervisors accepted a report from the Transportation,
Water, and Infrastructure Committee prepared by the Flood Control District on the
amendment to Contra Costa County's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. The Board also directed staff to develop a strategy and
recommendations to fund the costs and determine staffing needs to implement the
activities required by the new,'permit amendment, and refer this strategy to the Finance
Committee for review.
1. Background
On February 19, 2003, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board approved an amendment to our NPDES permit, to include a
provision for "New Development and Redevelopment Standards". These
new development and redevelopment standards are commonly known as
"Provision C.3", or simply as "C.3". Provision C.3 is the section number that
was added to our NPDES permit. A detailed outline of the new permit
amendment requirements are attached as Attachment 1.
2. Short-term Impacts
The new permit amendment generally allows the County to implement its
requirements over the next two to three years, depending upon the activity.
In the short-term, during this transitional period over the next two to three
years,the impact to the County will be establishing new business practices to
integrate these new requirements into our ordinance Codes, General Plan;
design standards, and guidelines. The County has formed a Clean Water
Task Force made up of several departments and the Mosquito and Vector
Control district to address these changes in our business practices over the
next two to three years. A considerable amount of staff time will need to be
devoted by our departments in order to meet the requirements stipulated by
the Regional Board within the timeline outlined in the permit. Attached is a
fisting of the work products and the due dates associated with each work
product required by the Regional Board to meet the new permit
requirements. (Attachment 2) The listing also identifies the County
Department(s)that will be impacted and will need to provide staff support to
complete that work product or activity.
3. Long-term Impacts
Long-term impacts on the County are those associated with the
implementation of the new permit requirements once they are fully effective
after the 2 —3 year transition period. The major impact will be the need for
additional staff to review plans for compliance with the new development
standards, to monitor the effectiveness of clean water improvements
constructed on public and private development projects,to provide regional
planning for the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan to reduce
sediment generation in watersheds and ensure stream stability during the
course of development within each watershed. Staff will also be required to
ensure all of the regional and local clean water facilities are adequately
maintained and to report to the Regional Board each year on specific
findings required in the permit. These requirements will also significantly
increase the staff time required to process permits and approvals for public
and private projects and to provide monitoring, maintenance, and reporting
services for completed projects. Developing a source of funding to provide
these services willbe a huge challenge.
4. Expected Staffing Needs
It is difficult to predict the short-term and long-term staffing needs necessary
to meet the new permit requirements. Staffing needs can only be developed
after an analysis is done of the specific resources necessary to comply with
each of the permit requirements outlined in the attachments. Several county
departments will be impacted by these new requirements, although the bulk
of the impact will be in Public Works, Community Development, Building
Inspection and Environmental Health. It is recommended that these four key
departments together provide an initial analysis of the permit requirements
for the resources needed over the next three years. Long-term resources
can then be determined at a later date.
The Contra Costa Clean Water Program is establishing three Work Groups
and an Oversight Committee to manage the Program's responsibilities under
the new clean water requirements. The first is a Planning and Permitting
2
Work Group, which will work on the development review and approval
processes and procedures. The second is a Technical Work Group, which
will focus on Best Management Practices, design, operation, and
maintenance issues, and the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan.
The third is a Legal Work Group,which will assist in addressing legal issues
as part of establishing and implementing the various clean water
requirements. An Oversight Committee, composed of two City Mangers,two
City Engineers/Public Works Directors, two City Attorneys, and two Planning
Directors will provide oversight for the Work Groups. The Work Groups will
assist in developing work products the Program will be completing for the
Cities and the County. The Work Groups will also determine the need for
appropriate consultants to do specific tasks. The short-term and long-term
staffing needs for the Program will not be fully understood until the Work
Groups are formed and they begin analyzing the tasks and activities that will
be the responsibility of the Program. This should be done by late Fall 2003.
5. Current Funding of Glean Water Activities
Under the current NPDES permit, prior to its amendment, activities were
funded from various sources. The primary source of funding was the
Stormwater Utility Assessment. The Stormwater Utility Assessment (SUA)
was. established by the Flood Control District in 1993 with agreement and
approval from the County and the Cities. Each year the Board of
Supervisors, as the governing Board of the Flood Control District, approves
the assessment amount for each City and the County for the next year. The
County is currently at its maximum SUA rate, as are most of the Cities. The
attached chart shows the funding source for clean water activities priorto the
permit amendment (Attachment 3).
5. Potential Funding of New Requirements
The new activities required by the permit amendment will result in +a.
substantial increase in program costs. New sources of revenue will need to
be identified to cover the costs associated with these permit amendment
requirements. Attached is a chart showing the new activities required by the
.permit amendment and some potential funding sources (Attachment 4).
Some of these potential funding sources, such as Developer fees, are
currently in effect and would simply need to be adjusted to accommodate the
increased staff time necessary to review development proposals. Other
potential funding sources, such as a subdivision Benefit Assessment District,
would need to be adopted by the Board after a vote by the subdivision
property owner(s). Other regional assessments, such as a watershed fee,
would have to be adopted by a vote of the electorate or property owners,
pursuant to Proposition 218.
For the Environmental Health Division, the current indications are that
3
compliance with the pending AB 885 regulations will necessitate increased
surveillance of existing onsite wastewater treatment systems(OWTS)in the
county. Property owners utilizing alternative OWTS are subject to an annual
permit and inspection fee to cover the required oversight costs, and full
implementation of this program aspect is pending, No funding exists to cover
the costs of routine surveillance of conventional systems. The development
of a county wide funding mechanism to pay for needed oversight activities to
properly manage the onsite wastewater treatment systems is needed, and
such a funding mechanism could also fund activities in stormwater
management and groundwater management. The Environmental Health
Division has been in active discussion with the Public Works Department
staff on this issue, and is committed to continue addressing the development
of permanent funding sources for a comprehensive watershed management
program.
7. Involvement of Environmental Health Division
The Environmental Health Division is delegated the authority and
responsibility to regulate onsite wastewater disposal systems (OWTS/septic
tank systems) through a Memora'ndum of Understanding between the
Division and the two Regional Water Quality Control Boards regulating
Contra Costa County. It is our responsibility to insure that the 12,000.
existing onsite wastewater treatment systems in the county operate in a
manner that does not endanger public health or contaminate the waters of
our county. It is also our responsibility to insure that new OWTSs are
designed, installed, and operated in the same manner, and that failing
systems are abated.The Contra Costa County Code serves as the statutory
authority for the program, and the Health Officer Regulations provide the
standards for the program. The program authority includes all cities within
the county.
The Division is also delegated the authority and responsibility to regulate all
water wells(including domestic wells),injection wells,soil borings, monitoring
wells, and small water systems in the county and cities therein by the State
Department of Water Resources and the State Department of Health
Services. Construction, operating and destruction standards are contained
both in local codes and regulations and in state codes and regulations. The
sole purpose of the program is to protect the groundwater of the county. As
part of the delegation by the Department of Health Services to be the Local
Permitting Agency for the 160 small water systems in the county,
Environmental Health Division staff has completed a Source Water
Assessment Program(SWAP)analysis for each of the small water systems.
8. Potential Impacts to the Environmental Health Division
The New Clean Water Requirements for stormwater runoff will emphasize
4
the recharging of groundwater supplies and the treatment of waters that
would be otherwise discharged. Our current regulations allow conventional
OWTS systems to be installed as long as the depth between the bottom of
the leaching trench and the groundwater table is at least five feet.
Alternative systems (engineered systems or systems with working parts that
treat the effluent) can be installed as long as there is at least three feet of
separation below the dispersal area and the groundwater table. There is
every indication that new regulations, required as a result of AB 885, will
mandate a five-foot minimum separation. Staff experience and water well
logs indicate a range in water tables in the county from being very near the
surface to over 300 feet in depth (if it can be found at all). With stormwater
being used to recharge aquifers and thus raise the water table, the county
program must be ready to determine areas where such practices will be
contrary to the needs of the county and determine appropriate program
adjustments. If a database identifying groundwater depths in the county is
not available,then creation of such a database utilizing water well logs may
be an important needed component of the program.
To protect the aquifers from contamination, the program will also need to be
able to address the potential impact from new stormwater infusion. This
could necessitate the testing of stormwater in retention basins to insure it's
percolation won't contaminate the groundwater and any water that will be
recharged via injection wells should also meet the groundwater standards. In
addition, injection wells will need to be permitted and inspected by
Environmental Health Division staff.
It is anticipated that AB885 regulations will include the US Environmental
Protection Agency management levels and prescribe evaluation programs for
all OWTS,ongoing analysis and annual onsite reviews of alternative systems
(the county currently has around 200 such systems,with more being installed
as limiting factors increase), and management entities for decentralized
systems. If it is determined that geographical areas are impacted by OWTS,
more extensive monitoring, correction and construction limitations will be
required. Coordinating the Environmental Health OWTS program and the
programs in other county agencies in a direction that combines the onsite
wastewater, ground and surface water protection programs.and stormwater
programs into a comprehensive management program that results in
analyzing existing and planning for future development deserves
consideration.
9. Grant Funding
Recognizing that the new clean water requirements will result in a significant
increase in costs, and that our funding is limited, staff has been diligently
applying for grants. The Contra Costa dean Water Program applied for a
Hydrograph Modification Management Planning grant and the Watershed
Forum applied for a grant to establish a mitigation bank for regional solutions
5
for these new development and redevelopment projects. Staff has also been
working with our congressional representatives for federal funding of our
Hydrograph Modification Management Plan. In addition, the County has
applied for several grants to help fund ongoing program costs.
10. Legislation
For the past two years we have been working with the California State
Association of Counties (CSAC) and the County Engineers Association of
California (CEAC)to support legislation that would provide opportunities for
funding solutions to clean water permit requirements. The most promising
legislation at this time is Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 10,
sponsored by Assembly Member Harmon, which if adopted and
subsequently approved by the voters, would allow stormwater assessments
to be generated similar to a Water District or Sanitary District. ACA 10 would
add stormwater as an exemption to the Proposition 218 voting requirements.
Currently, water, sewer, and trash collection are exempt. The City of
Salinas adopted a stormwater fee several years ago and claimed they were
exempt from the Proposition 218 voting requirements,citing that stormwater
was either water or sewer and should therefore be exempt. The stormwater
fee was challenged in the District Court and appealed to the Appellate Court.
.The Appellate Court's decision was against the City and found that
stormwater fees were not exempt from Proposition 218. The California
Supreme Court declined to review the Appellate Court's decision. The Board
of Supervisors has taken a position in support of ACA 10.
Assembly Bill (AB) 204, sponsored by Assembly Member Nation,would add
$4 to the vehicle registration fee for clean water and open space projects.
Funding from AB 204 would not come directly to the County but would go to
the Bay Area Coastal Conservancy and be administered as a grant program
to the Cities,the County, and other agencies for projects of a clean water or
open space nature. This funding could be used to acquire land for regional
clean water facilities and pay for their construction. AB 204 is now a 2-year
bill.
11. Recommendations
The following are recommendations for the Finance Committee to consider
to address the new clean water permit requirements.
The totality of the issues and impacts of the new clean water requirements
are complex and numerous. Not enough information is available at this time
to effectively address all of the issues and impacts. As a result, it is
suggested that these recommendations be split into two phases. The first
phase is action that staff would take to gather information necessaryto make
longer-term strategic decisions. The second phase identifies issues to be
6
• addressed once the information in phase one is completed.
1. Phase One
The following recommendations should be undertaken now and
reported back to the Committee once complete.
A) direct staff from Public Works, Community Development,
Building Inspection and Environmental Health to analyze the
work products and activities needed to complete the items
outlined in the attachments and then estimate the resultant
costs and resources. This will be the short-term costs and
staffing needs over the next 2 to 3 years.
B) Direct staff to determine which work products and activities are
related to land development and acknowledge that the staff
work performed in analyzing those work products and activities
should be paid by development fees. Each department will
track their costs to complete this initial analysis.
Reimbursement of development related costs will be through
an increase in development fees in Phase Two, once the total
short-term costs are determined.
C) Acknowledge that a coordinator position will need to be
created in the Public Works Department to coordinate and
assist the other Departments in meeting the timeline for
submittal of work products identified by the Regional Board
and to manage the overall transition process. The cost of the
coordinator could be reimbursed through an increase in the
developer fees over a 10-year period.
Il. Phase Two
The following is a preview of some issues that will be more fully
developed into recommendations in a subsequent report to the
Committee. The information developed in Phase I above will be
needed to complete these recommendations.
A) Developer Fees
V Acknowledge that for the long-term there will be increased staff time
expended to process, review, and inspect private development
projects, which will increase the development costs for private
projects. Each department will need to determine how these
increased costs will be paid. Development fees may be one source of
funding.
7
✓ Explore modifying the current developer fee rate to include a
surcharge or "backend" fee that will cover the short-term costs to
modify the County's business practices, general plan,ordinance code
and standards. The additional staff costs required over the next two
to three years will be paid by the surcharge on developer fees and
could be spread out over a longer period, such as 10-years. The total
cost to be spread over the next say, 14 years, will be determined in
Phase One.
✓ Meet with representatives of the land development community and
land planning!/engineering consultants to discuss how to fund the
County's short-term staffing costs for those activities related to land
development, including the possibility of adding a surcharge on to the
existing development fees.
B) Benefit Assessments for Subdivision Facility Maintenance
✓ Explore with County Counsel the feasibility of a Countywide Benefit
Assessment District to maintain clean water facilities and, form
subzones encompassing individual subdivisions with specific
assessments to cover the maintenance needs in each subdivision
development. If this funding mechanism doesn't work, then explore
other mechanisms with County Counsel such as County Service
Areas, Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts, Community Services
Districts, etc. If none of these are appropriate,then explore legislation
to create an appropriate entity.
C) Public Projects
✓ Acknowledge that budgets for public projects will need to be
increased to cover the additional costs required by the new permit
amendment.
D) Short-term Staffing Needs
✓ Acknowledge that several County Departments, in particular, Public
Works, Community Development, Building Inspection, and
Environmental Health, will be required to modify business practices
over the next two to three years to meet the new permit amendment
requirements. The cost of additional staff time for development
related work could be reimbursed through an increase in developer
fees over a 10-year period.
8
xx
E) Contra Costa Clean Water Program Staffing Needs
✓ Acknowledge that additional staff will be needed in the Contra Costa
Clean Water Program. Oversight of the Clean Water Program for
policy, budget, and staffing resides with the Clean Water Program
Management Committee. The Management Committee is made up of
representatives of each of the 19 cities, the County, and the Flood
Control District. The Program recently approved the addition of a
Watershed Management Specialist. In the short-term, the Program
will be addressing its staffing needs by using consultants. The first
need for a consultant will be to draft the Hydrograph Modification
Management Plan. The Request for Proposal for that effort will go out
in late Fall 2003. Once all the requirements and procedures are fully
implemented, the Program may need to add additional permanent
staff.
F) Public Works Watershed Protection Staffing Needs
✓ Public Works staff in the Flood Control Division manage the
unincorporated County's local Clean Water Program (Watershed
Protection Program). Public Works recently received a $1,000,000
grant for clean water improvements in five marinas in eastern Contra
Costa County as a pilot project. The contract for the grant with the
State should be completed by October and an additional staff person
will need to be hired to administer that project.
G) Legislation
✓ The County will need to continue to work with regional and local
agencies, such as CEAC, CSAC, League of Cities, City/County
Engineers, Contra Costa Cities and the Contra Costa Clean Water
Program to further legislative efforts that could provide funding for the
new clean water requirements. This may include developing new
legislation.
■
H) Groundwater
✓ The County will need to develop a database identifying groundwater
depths and a database of water well logs to monitor separation
between groundwater table and septic tank systems.
✓ Establishing a testing program for the quality of stormwater in
retention facilities and injection wells may be needed to protect
groundwater quality.
9
t
1) Wastewater and Stormwater Program Coordination
✓ The management and monitoring of onsite wastewater treatment
systems will need to be coordinated with the new clean water
requirements for stormwater, especially once the AB 885 regulations
have been released.
J) Environmental Health Issues
As the Phase 11 Stormwater Program and C-3 provisions are
implemented, the Environmental Health Division will need to insure that
the following issues are addressed:
1. Existing groundwater levels in the project areas.
2. Anticipated groundwater levels as a result of the recharging
project.
3. The impact of the groundwater level on onsite wastewater
treatment systems.
4. The impact of introducing an increasing amount of stormwater
into the groundwater.
5. The impact of the project on existing and future small water
systems and individual domestic wells.
6. The review and possible upgrading of the water well and onsite
wastewater disposal system ordinances and regulations.
MMS:RMA:sg
G:\Grpoata\Admin\Mitch\Clean water Requirements\Finance Comm CW Req memo.doc
Attachments; 1) New Permit Amendment Requirements
2) Summary C-3 Requirements
3) Current Clean water Activities
4) Future Clean Water Activities
10
• 0,4 Attachment 1
PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUIREMENTS
On February 19, 2003, the Regional Board approved an amendment to
our NPDES permit to include a provision for new development and
redevelopment standards. This provision is commonly known as "Section
C.3" or simply as "C.3". Section C.3 is the section number that was added
to our permit. The following are the new permit requirements in the
amended permit:
a. New and Redevelopment Performance Standard
Implementation
Provision C.3.a. requires implementation and continuous
improvement of Performance Standards to control stormwater
pollutants to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). In
addition:
Note: As part of the General Construction Permit, after
March 10, 2003, all projects with one acre or more of
disturbed ground surface is required to develop and
implement Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP).
"Each Discharger shall ensure access to treatment
measures.to Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control
District staff."
"Each Discharger shall provide educational materials to
municipal staff, developers, contractors, construction site
operators, and owner/builders, early in the planning process
and as appropriate."
b. Development Project Approval Process
Requires modifications to planning/permitting
processes/procedures to incorporate C.3 requirements
(completion by February 15, 2005):
For example:
Generat Man amendments, ordinanceststandards,
environmental review
Conditions of approval
• source control measures
• site design measures (ma)dmizze infiltration, retention,
detention; and minimize impervious land coverage)
•
treatment measures.
• management of, runoff in accordance iW& Hydro,
Modification Management Ilan
• no Increase In direct discharge to 303(d) pollutant to
unpaired water ries
Attachment 1
c. Applicable projects
■ Group 1 — New and redevelopment projects (i.e., public and
private)that create and/or replace one acre or more of
impervious surfaces (effective February 15, 2005)
Exemptions:
Single family Domes not part of a. larger common plan of
development
+ roadway amenities - side walks, tricycle lanes, trails,
bridge accessories, guardrails, and landscape features
Routine maintenance and repair—roof or exterior surface
replacement, pavement resurfacing, repaving and road
pavement rehabilitation within. existing pavement
footprint, and any other reconstruction work within a
public street or road right-of-way where both sides are
developed
Private development projects "deemed complete" by
February 15, 2005
Public projects "for which funding has been committed
and for which construction is scheduled by February 15,
2005"
• Group 2 — Same as Group 1 definition except project size
threshold is reduced from one acre of impervious surface to
10,000 square feet (effective August 15, 20061)
Municipalities may submit a "Proposal for Alternative Group 2
Project Definition" (no deadline)
Proposals must demonstrate alternative is substantially as
effective as default Group 2 definition
Goal. maximum created Impervious surface area is
treated for the minimum number of projects
♦ Constderations.,
Land use types and potential pollutants and loadings
Low pollutant loading land types may be allowed to
rely solely on applicable ?
techniques
d. Numeric Sizing for Treatment Measures
■ Requires "applicable projects" to include treatment measures
that capture and treat and/or infiltrate stormwater runoff, and
be sized in accordance with one or more of the following
volume and flow based hydraulic design criteria:
2
Attachment 1
Design criteria for treatment measures relying on volume
capacity (e.g., detention/retention units, infiltration
structures)
The maximized stormwater capture volume for the area,
based on historical rainfall records, determined using the
formula and volume capture coefficients set forth in
Urban Runoff Quality Management, WWF Manual of
Practice No. 231ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87 (1998),
pages 175-178, or
4 Volume of annual runoff required to achieve 0% or more
capture, determined in accordance with the methodology
in Appendix D of the Catlfornla Stormwater Quality Best
Management Practices Handbook, (1993), using local
rainffall data.
Design criteria for treatment measures relying on flow
capacity (e.g., swales, sand filters or wetlands)
10% of the 50-year peak flaw rate, or
Runoff flow produced by rain event equal to at least
two times the 86th percentile hourly rainfall intensity
based on historical records of hourly rainfall depths
Runoff flow resulting from a rain; event equal to at
least 0.2 inches per hour intensity
e. Operation & Maintenance (O&M) of Treatment Measures
■ Requires development and implementation of an O&M
verification program for treatment measures (effective July 1,
2004)
• O&M Verification Program shall include:
Listing of properties and responsible operators
Legally enforceable (and transferable)agreements or
moohanisms assigning O&M responsibility, and
ensuring access to responsible agencies
Verification of O&M program implementation and
effectiveness in Annual Reports beginning September
2006
• Vector Control Plan by June 1, 2004
Including design guidance for treatment measures
f. Limitation on increase of Peak Stormwater Runoff Discharge
Rates
• requires managing increases in peak runoff flow and runoff
volume for"applicable projects" where increased flow and/or
3
Attachment 7
volume is likely to cause increased erosion of creek beds and
banks, slit pollution generation, or other water body impacts to
beneficial uses due to increased erosive force
Exempted projects:
+ Transit village type developments within Y2 mile of
transit station and/or intermodal facility
+ "Redevelopment Areas" (defined In Health & Safety
(H&S) Code section 33000)that develop an existing
brownfield site or create housing for persons of low or
moderate income (defined in H&S Code section,
5'0093)
More exemptions*:
+ New and redevelopment projects where impacts are
"minimal"
Discharges to hardened or underground
conveyances downstream.to their outfall into the
San Francisco BaylDelta
• Infill projects in highly developed watersheds
where individual and cumulative impacts are
minimal
Dote: projects/areas subject to these exemptions
must be addressed in a Hydrograph Modification
Management Flan (HMP)due to regional Board for
approval May 15, 2005
■ The Hydrograph Modification Management Plan includes, but
Is not limited to:
Literature review
Protocol to evaluate potential hydrograph change impacts to
downstream watercourses from proposed projects
• Identification of rainfall below which standards and
management measures apply, or range of rainfall events to
which requirements apply
• Guidelines for identifying situations where discharges into
creeks or storm drains will have minimal potential for erosion
or other impacts to beneficial uses
• Guidelines for coordinating subsequent future creek
restoration efforts with HMP management practices and
measures
4
x " Attachment 1
■ HMP components continued:
A description of how the dischargers will incorporate
standards and management measures into their local
approval processes
Guidance on management practices and measures to
address identified impacts, for example:
minimize impervious surfaces and directly connected
impervious areas in development projects
stormwater detention, retention, and infittrat%on
land use planning measures (e.g., stream buffers,
stream restoration activities, restoration-In-advance of
floodplains, etc.)
Mechanism for pre- vs. post-project assessment to
determine HMP effectiveness
g. Alternative Compliance and Compensatory Mitigation
■ Allows municipalities to establish a program for project
proponents to propose an alternative to the onsite treatment
requirements (C.3.d.)
Upon showing of impracticability or infeasibility (e.g.,
technically feasible but excessively costly), as determined by
a set criteria
Must provide equivalent offsite mitigation (pollutant loading
or quantity of stormwater runoff)
Offsite location shall be within same stormwater runoff
discharge drainage basin and treating runoff discharging to
the same receiving water, where feasible
• Group Program encouraged to propose model alternative
compliance program on behalf of dischargers, for approval
by the Regional Board
■ Exemptions to requirement for equivalent offsite mitigation:*
• Redevelopment projects creating housing units affordable to
persons of low or moderate income, redevelopment of
Brownfield sites, and transit villages type developments
within '/ mile of transit stations and/or intermodal facilities.
*Note: must demonstrate that cost of alternative, equivalent
offsite treatment will unduly burden the project.
■ Equivalent offsite mitigation can include:
enhancement of existing mitigation projects
5
Attachment 1
• Stream restoration or other activities that limit or mitigate
impacts from excessive erosion or sedimentation
• Alternative compliance program may allow project proponent
to participate in regional or watershed based treatment facility
without a showing of impracticability, if facility discharges into
the same receiving water, where feasible.
• Program must establish a criteria for use of regional solutions,
describe how project sponsor will provide equivalent water
quality benefit or credit, and develop mechanisms to track and
report alternative projects and exemptions granted
If no alternative compliance program is proposed, approved by
Regional Board, and implemented by municipality by February
95, 2005, then interim alternative compliance may be granted
by the municipality, if project proponent:
Demonstrates onsite impracticability due to
extreme limitations on space for treatment, or
below grade treatment options, and
Sufficient assurance of providing equlvelent oftite
mitigation within the same drainage basin draining
to the sane receiving water, where feasible
Equivalent treatment not involving best management
practice construction must be approved by Executive Officer
Interim Alternative Compliance to be assured and reported in
Annual Report
Interim Alternative Compliance clause void upon approval of
Alternative Compliance Program
h. Alternative Certification of Adherence to design Criteria for
Treatment Measures
■ Allows a municipality to accept certification by a third party or
another co-permittee that a project meets the requirements of
C.3.d (treatment sizing criteria) and C.3.f(HMP). Must be a
Civil Engineer or a Licensed Architect or Landscape Architect
registered in the State of California.
+ Municipality should verify:
Certifying person,has been trained on treatment measure
design for water quality not more than three years: prior to
they signature date, and
+ Understands the groundwater protection principles and
limitations applicable to the site and contained in
Provision 0.31
6
1 y l
Attachment 1
i. Limitations of Use of infiltration Treatment Measures --
Infiltration and Groundwater
■ Prohibits the use of treatment BMPs that function primarily as
infiltration devices unless the project meets, at a minimum, the
following conditions.
Cit implementation of pollution prevention and source control
BMPs at level appropriate to protect groundwater quality
• Devices shall not cause or contribute to degradation of
groundwater quality objectives
• Devices must be maintained to maximize pollutant
removal capabilities
m Minimum distance of 90 feet (or more) between base of
device and seasonal high groundwater table
• Not within 900 horizontal feet of any known water supply
well
■ Unless stormwater runoff is first treated by a means other than
infiltration, infiltration devices are prohibited as treatment
measures for.
+ Areas of industrial or light industrial activity
+ Areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or greater
average daily traffic (ADT) on a main roadway or 15,000 or
more ACTT on any intersecting roadway)
+ Automotive repair shops, car washes, fleet storage areas
(bus, truck, etc.), nurseries and other high threat uses
designated by the municipality
J. Site Design Measures Guidance and Standards Development
■ Requires municipalities to review and revise local design
standards and guidance for opportunities to reduce impacts to
water quality and beneficial uses (implementation by November
15, 2005)
+ Areas of site design improvement may include:
m Minimizing land disturbance
Ea Minimizing Impervious surfaces, and especially Directly
Canned impervious Areas (DC[As)
m Street design standards
m Parking lets
m Clustering of structures and pavement
m beat4evel measures (e.g., disconnected roof downspouts,
driveways, landscaping detention and use of cisterns)
m Preservation of high quality open spaces
m Maintenance andlor restoration of riparian areas and
wetlands
7
Attachment 1
m Landscaping that detains, retains or infiltrates runoff
k. Source Control Measures Guidance Development
■ Requires municipality to submit draft conditions of approval for
enhanced source control measures, and an implementation
work plan by August 15, 2004 (implementation by February
15, 2005)
Example source controls are as follows.
d Indoor mat/equipment wash racks for restaurants, or
covered outdoor wash racks plumbed to sanitary sewer
Q Covered trash: and food compactor enclosures with
sanitary sewer connection for durnpster drips and
designed to prevent run-on to enclosed areas
® unitary sewer drains for swimming pools.
• unitary drained outdoor covered wash areas:for
vehicles, equipment, and accessories
• unitary sewer drain connections to take fire sprinkler
test water
m Storm drain stenciling
• Landscaping that minlrrdzes irrigation and runoff,
promotes surface infiltration where appropriate,
minimizes pesticide and fertilizer use, and where feasible
removes pollutants from storrnwater
• Appropriate covers, drains and storage precautions for
outdoor material storage areas, loading docks,
repair/maintenance bays, and fueling areas.
I. Update General Plans
■ Requires municipality to amend General Pians, as may be
necessary, in order to implement required measures in
Provision C.3 by February 15, 2005. (Note: If the amendment is
legally necessary in order to allow for implementation of any
aspect of Provision C.3, then such amendment shall occur by
the effective implementation date*)
General Plan goals and policies shall be designed to protect
natural water bodies, reduce impervious land coverage, slow
runoff, and where feasible, maximize opportunities for
infiltration of rainwater into soil.
*Note: delays in adoption of amendments to General Flans due to
CEQA requirements or constraints caused by applicable laws may
warrant a delay to one or more implementation dates, subject to
approval by Regional Board. (Delays to the February 15, 2005
deadline must be reported in the Annual Report submitted on
September 30, 2004).
8
Attachment 1
mr Water Quality Review Processes
■ Requires municipality to evaluate water quality effects
(increased pollutants and flows) and identify appropriate
mitigation measures during environmental reviews (effective
May 15, 2004)
Would the project result in:
m Increased pollutant discharges to receiving waters?
m Significant alteration of receiving water quality during or
following construction's
m Increased Impervious surfaces and runoff?
• Adverse impacts to drainage patterns from changes in
runoff flow, rates and volumes?
® Increased erosion in the watershed?
lir Contribute a 303(d)pollutant to a impaired water body"?
• Potential significant Impact on surface or groundwater
quality, to marine, fresh or wetland waters?
m increased potential to cause or contribute to are
exceedance to surface or groundwater water quality
objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
0 Impacts to aquatic, wetland or riparian habitat?
G:\GrpData\Adm1n\M1tch\C1ean water Requirements\Permit Amend Req FC memo.doc
0
b
if
CL ofZ rn �i rrz C-1 vI µ a ��
" t
6 1 8 E�- Ai
f�D O ca cincro 102.
ce , LS Ca 11 ,tom .
!�, � J"f �yy t'C ,"�s` �•*� ,��i ,c�,� tS � (�
j CD 0 Ft est * •"i
8 OR
CD
2y
to
g ty f ply CJ .� FL w t4 "!
crny C5 �• � c✓t � �, � tea
o C5
C* (9
W
{'p
,
k
K
s�
x x
s
y c�
� � i.,3 � �, t.,a .•,. � is � `'' �' �
�. 1;� K
CCD
°'loR .
rti * + C) ri ct rc cs R b
�'' e� p.. .•.S ,.G �" rn � �• � to � to .-•
CD
t�-t"• �' O
✓y �, � + v � �+,. r�"'� ' yet Cq � � �d � � � � c�D r�
0 CL CD
rr 14.
^d j CR O CS
rnCDO *+�
� C3" ,�� „�„•SCS'
CD CY
Cn
CD
CL Jq N N
4cts to
r�
ra
o
o
w
cr s cr cs le. L.. �..0 v0..a 8, 10
pod
�CD
o .
; CD m
cr
g
yr vA � tv
FA,t74 "� uA v,
C x x x x �C '
z �
rn
�4 X x
hJ
>C x X x x
G x X
c�
d �
x X
x X ' X xC
X x x x > x x
w � �
A r
,% x l 4
..` rA csz
m
r.
701
n �
oro so ca C ✓ m o c cj g cn
on
UQ 00
tr
w ` o
o
Un
IAI
tA
ta
'Pill "
o
1
Attachment 3
Current dean Water Activities
Street Local County SUA
sweeping
Local drainage Local County SUA/Benefit
maintenance Assessment
Regional Regional/Watershed County/Flood SUA/FC Zone
drainage Control District,
maintenance
Litter Local Coun SUA/Road Funds
Local Local County SUA
education
Regional Countywide Contra Costa Clean SUA
education Water Program
Special Countywide Contra Costa Clean SUA
studies Water Pro am
Detention Local/Regional Flood Control FC Zone/ SUA
Basin District/Count
Question: What current needs are not met by the existing SUA?
SUA: Stormwater Utility Assessment, the parcel assessment used to fund our
current clean water activities. The current annual assessment is set at $30 per
parcel, which cannot be raised without a vote in accordance with Proposition 218.
Benefit Assessment: An assessment placed on a parcel through formation of a
Benefit Assessment District. The assessments are used for a specific stated
purpose.
FC Zone: Flood Control Zone which receives a portion of the ad valorem property
tax at a rate lacked in with Proposition 13 (1978). Some zones receive significant
revenue and some receive zero revenue each year, depending on the locked in tax
rate. The zones are established by watershed and the funds can only be spent in
that watershed. There are 14 zones throughout the county.
KN4A.t-:sg(07110/03)
G:1CrrpDataWm. inllvlitch\C:urrent Activity.dac
. . Attachment 4
Future Clean Water Activities
Development Local. County Developer fees
Review
BMP Monitoring Local County Benefit Assessment
by Subdivision
Public Project Local county Project Funds
Development
Public Project BMP Local Countv Project Funds
Public Project BMP County Department that
Maintenance Local funded project
BMP Future County Benefit Assessment
Maintenance Local Reserve
Corrections
Annual BMP Re ort Local CoTl!y Benefit Assessment
HMP Plan Watershed County/Flood Watershed Fee?
Control District
HMP Regional County/Flood 'Watershed
Facilities Watershed Control District Fee?/Developer Fee
Regional HMP County/Flood
Facility Watershed Control District Watershed Fee?
Maintenance
C3 Annual Re ort Local County ?
Description of future activities.
I. Development review. Review treatment BMPs, review projects for
CEQA, review for compliance with new policies and regulations,
review design and sizing criteria of BMP, calculate impervious
surface for threshold requirements, review for compliance with
adopted HMP, enter project data into long-term tracking system for
reporting purposes, prepare Clean Water specific conditions of
approval, prepare legal agreements for BMP maintenance, review
CEQA documentation for impacts on water quality.
2. BIIP Monitoring: Monitor BMPs (Best Management Practices)
installed by subdivisions for ongoing effectiveness. This would
include treatment measures such as detention/retention ponds, wetland
biofilters, grassy swales, etc.
RMA:lz:sg(07/15/03)
GAGrpData\AdmintMitehTuture Clean Water Activities.dac
• x 7
Attachment 4
3. Public Project Development: Integrating Clean Water objectives
into public project design similar to development review process
outlined above.
4. Public Project BMP: The construction of a Clean Water BMP
facility to mitigate the project's generation of pollutants. This would
include pervious landscape, infiltration ponds/trenches, grassy swales,
etc.
5. Public Project BMP maintenance: The annual cost to maintain
BMPs constructed by public projects such as, buildings, roads, and
parrs.
6. BMP corrections. Modifying or correcting a BMP that is no longer
effective. The need for corrections would be discovered during the
ongoing BMP Monitoring.
7. Annual BMP report: Report to the Regional Water {duality Control
Board on the effectiveness of BMP installed by developers, and public
projects, and regional facilities.
8. HMP Plan: The costs to develop, update, and maintain a Regional
Clean Water Plan 'for each watershed pursuant to the HMP
(Hydrograph Modification Management Plan)
9. HMP Regional Facilities: The cost to install an HMP Regional
Clean Water facility identified in a watershed plan to mitigate
development wig the watershed.
14. HMP Regional Facility maintenance. The annual cost to maintain
the regional facility required by the HMP.
11. C3 annual report: The annual cost to report the compliance with all
of the measures identified above and outlined in the C3 provisions.
RMA:L:sg(07/15/03)
GAGrpDatalAdmin\MitehTuture Clean Water Activities.doc