HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06081993 - MR.1 MR . I
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DATE: June 10 , 1993 MATTER OF RECORD
This is the time heretofore noticed for public meeting and
public hearing on implementation of Federal Clean Water Act
requirements for storm water utility areas and assessments
covering sixteen cities and the unincorporated area of the County.
Supervisors Smith, Bishop and Torlakson were present .
Supervisors Powers and McPeak were absent due to previous
commitments .
Donald Freitas, Public Works Department, reviewed the
attached report with the Board and the members of the public in
attendance .
The following persons appeared to give testimony:
Carl Piercy, 925 Carol Lane, Lafayette;
Jim Boccio, 812 East 10th Street, Antioch;
Maureen Schmidt, 839 Grayson Lane, Pleasant Hill ;
Russ Holt, 1016 Palisade Court, Martinez;
Martin MacGregor, 856 Reef Point Drive, Rodeo;
Russell Umbraco, 6019 Arlington Boulevard, Richmond;
John Wolfe, 820 Main Street, Martinez, representing the
Contra Costa Taxpayers Association;
Charles S . Boyd, 2086 Banbury Road, Walnut Creek;
Bird Morningstar, 3577 Dumbarton Street, Concord;
Seth Cockrell, 100 Fire Place, Knightsen;
Ray Emig, 645 Odin Drive, Pleasant Hill;
Larry Norton, 808 Sandy Cove Drive, Rodeo;
James Votto, 2 Live Oak Circle, E1 Sobrante;
Samuel E. Lipson, 2047 Olympic Drive, Martinez ;
Teresa Peters, 1741 Center Avenue, Martinez;
Bob Gabriel, 133 Arkinlander, Martinez;
Dave Wilzbach, 810 Jones Avenue, Pinole;
Ronald Mills, 1204 Lawler Ranch Parkway, Suisun;
Chairman Torlakson requested that staff respond to
individuals with specific issues including Mrs . Peters on the
cleanup of the pollution at Hidden Lakes and Russ Holt' s request
for more information on the budget breakdown for the program.
Supervisor Bishop suggested that a copy of the budget be made
available to the various branches of the public library throughout
Contra Costa County.
Chairman Torlakson requested that each city make a copy of
the budget available in their City Hall and he advised that the
Board would make a copy available in the office of the Clerk of
the Board and that it would be made available to the news media
annually.
Chairman Torlakson requested that County Counsel investigate
the possibility of a senior citizen or low income exemption or
discount process.
Supervisor Bishop thanked all those who were in attendance
this evening.
Chairman Torlakson requested that staff explore legislative
proposals that would look at taxing the products that contribute
to pollution or a user fee as had been suggested.
Supervisor Bishop concurred but advised that that has to be a
I ,
part of Federal legislation and that the Board needs to encourage
their legislative delegation to enact this legislation.
Chairman Torlakson reminded the public that this matter would
be considered further by the Board of Supervisors on June 15, 1993
at 6 : 00 p.m. in the Board chambers .
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN
pgQ
o � a
� � 0 � 6� �7Q � C� G3 p0 � dNJ � � 0 �J
C� O �l � G30 � pG30CG3QM
BOARD d supFfiflSons
JUNE W aiNCl HMOs
GOALS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
JUNE 10 & JUNE 1511993
• Provide Explanation of Program
• Receive Public Input
• Receive Written Protests
• Respond to Board and Public Questions/Concerns
• Make Determinations (June 15, 1993)
- Majority Protest
- Establish Stormwater Utility Areas (17)
- Establish Stormwater Utility Assessments ($14 to $33)
PROGRAM DIRECTIVES
• Federal Water Pollution Control Act (referred to
as the Clean Water Act) as amended in 1987.
Implement Section 402(p) requiring a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit for stormwater discharges for
municipal, industrial and construction
activities.
• California State Water Resources Control Board's
Water Quality Control Plan for Enclosed Bays and
Estuaries.
Implement Section 13225(c) of the California
Water Code mandating anurban runoff
management program to reduce pollutants in
runoff to the maximum extent practicable for
commercial, residential and industrial areas.
j
i
i
STORMWATER RUNOFF FACTS
• Storm runoff is the largest uncontrolled source of
pollution into San Francisco Bay, accounting for 20
percent to 90 percent of pollutants entering the Bay.
• Many fish and other aquatic creatures died in large
numbers when exposed to . Bay Area storm runoff in
laboratory tests.
• State health officials advise against swimming in San
Francisco Bay after a heavy rain because of the
pollutants in storm runoff.
• Storm runoff from cooper-containing products such as
brake linings, herbicides and algae killers accounts for
11,000 pounds of copper discharged each year into the
.Bay. Copper in storm runoff is more than three times
the volume discharged through sewer and industrial
treatment plants.
• Every year, Americans illegally dump 120 million gallons
of used motor oil - 11 times the size of the Valdez oil
spill - down storm drains, on the ground and in the trash.
• Many household gardeners use pesticides at 20 times the
rate farmers do, adding poisons to runoff.
Source: San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
• The Federal and State's regulations mandated each
jurisdiction within Contra Costa County that owns,
operates or maintains a storm sewer system to have
a Stormwater Management Pollution Prevention
Program.
• The intent of these regulations is to radically
reduce or eliminate all pollutants from stormwater.
• Implementation of the NPDES Program will
enhance the water quality of the Bay/Delta
Estuary.
PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS
• April 12, 1991 letter from the Executive Officer of the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
"The Regional Board considers storm water runoff a
significant source of pollutants to waters in the San
Francisco Bay Region. Storm water runoff discharges
contribute to violations of water quality objectives in
waters throughout the urban areas of the Region. This
letter is to inform you that the Regional Board is
requiring Contra Costa County, the Contra Costa
County Flood Control District, and all cities in Contra
Costa County to develop and implement a storm water
management program."
• Participants Include:
Antioch Moraga
Clayton Orinda
Concord Pinole
Danville Pittsburg
El Cerrito Pleasant Hill
Hercules San Pablo
Lafayette San Ramon
Martinez Walnut Creek
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County Flood Control
& Water Conservation District
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
• Part I - Reconnaissance Level Activities
Submitted on May 18, 1992.
• Part II - Stormwater Management Plan
Submitted on May 17, 1993.
•
Part. III - Implementation of the Joint
Municipal NPDES Permit (1993 -
1998).
•
Philosophy . - Minimal Compliance Meeting
Regulatory Requirements.
Low cost, but effective.
Target specific city/town/county
problems/concerns.
PROGRAM ACTIVITTES
• Illegal discharge & illicit connection inspection
program.
• Regular street sweeping.
• Storm. ' drain maintenance including catch basin
cleaning.
• Water quality monitoring in wet & dry weather.
• Detection & clean-up program.
• Public education program informing citizens of the
direct harmful effect of dumping oil, paints,
solvents, herbicides, pesticides, etc. down the storm
sewer system.
• Sedimentation and erosion control. program.
• Industrial outreach program.
PROGRAM FUNDING
• Dedicated source of funding.
• Pay only NPDES implementation costs.
• Exclude construction of capital improvements.
• Based on impervious surfaces generated by various
types of land uses.
• Be as fair and equitable as possible.
• Locally determined by each participating
municipality.
STORMWATER UTILITY AREAS
ASSESSMENTS
• AB 2768 provides a financing own.
• Form a stormwater utility area which is the area
within an incorporated jurisdiction or the
unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.
• Establish a stormwater utility assessment based on
an approved stormwater management plan by a
majority of the governing board per jurisdiction.
o Assessment is based on an "equivalent runoff unit"
or an ERU. Each ERU represents 3,300 square
feet of impervious surface.
• Provides protest provisions - More than 50 percent
of the area in a stormwater utility area.
o Provides. an appeal procedure.
• SB 1977 requires public notice to each affected
parcel notice prior to consideration by the
governing board.
STORMWATER UTILITY AREAS
ASSESSMENTS (Proposed)
Antioch $20.00
Clayton $23.00
Concord $26.00
Danville $22.00
El Cerrito' $14.00
Hercules $26.00
Lafayette $15.00
Martinez $20.00
Maraga $25.00
Orinda $23.00
Pinole $29.40
Pittsburg $24.00
Pleasant Hill $25.00
San Pablo $33.00
San Ramon $23.00
Walnut Creek $27.50
Unincorporated areas $18.00
STORMWATER UTILITY ASSESSMENT
FOR OTI�R NRISDICTIONS.
NRISDICTION PER HOUSEHOLD
Berkeley $50.00
Modesto $42.00
Palo Alto $39.00
Richmond ` ` $32.00
Hayward $30.00
City of Sacramento $30.00
Santa Clara County $26.85
(Unincorporated)
City of Alameda $20.00
Livermore $18.00
PUBLIC NOTICE
• Mailed 238,234 notices to affected . parcel owners
based on the 1992 equalized tax roll.
• Developed computer generated database using
Land Information and Geographic Information
Systems.
• Maintained two telephone "hot lines" to handle
inquiries. Staffed by two trained operators.
• Flood Control District has provided personnel to
resolve assessment problems (e.g., area, land use
code, property ownership, etc.).
STORMWATER UTILITY ASSESSMENT
STATUS REPORT
THURSDAY JUNE 10, 1993
PARCEL OWNERS:
Public Notices Sent - 238,234
Recorded Protests - 27,469
ACREAGE:
Tax Rate Area Area Protested Total Assessable Percentage*
Area
01 City of Antioch 807 5,550 14.5
02 City of Concord 1,245 8,235 15.1
03 City of El Cerrito 146 1,801 8.1
04 City of Hercules 165 1,380 11.9
05 City of Martinez 514 3,392 15.1
06 City of Pinole 188 1,570 11.9
07 City.of Pittsburg 773 3,964 19.5
09 City of Walnut Creek 774 5,979 12.9
11 City of San Pablo 172 1;408 12.2
12 City of Pleasant Hill 381 2,830 13.4
13 City of Clayton 137 11307 10.5
14 City of Lafayette 592 4,847 12.2
15 Town of Moraga 236 2,417 9.7
16 Town of Danville 499 4,550 10.9
17 City of San Ramon 572 33677 15.5
18 City of Orinda 359 3,441 10.4
50 Unincorporated County 5,997 327083 18.6
PROTEST REQUIREMENT:
A majority protest by the owners of more than 50% in area of the territory proposed to be
included in the stormwater utility area would cause the assessment to be abandoned in that
area.
* Total includes valid and potentially valid protests.
NONCOMPLIANCE
• Daily fine. of $10,00.0
• Daily. fine of $20 per gallon of discharge
Issue "cease and desist" orders:
Construction projects
Redevelopment projects
- Transportation projects