Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06102003 - PR1 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: TRANSPORTATION,WATER AND INFRASTRUCTURE COMMITTEE DATE: JUNE 10,2003 SUBJECT: REPORT ON NEW CLEAN WATER REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION I. Recommended Action: A) ACCEPT the'following report from.the Transportation,Water and Infrastructure Committee prepared by the Flood Control and Water Conservation District on the amendment to Contra Costa County's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit, and B) RECOGNIZE members of the Contra Costa Clean Water Program's Executive Committee who negotiated the permit amendment provisions with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and APPROVE the attached Resolution; and C) DIRECT 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 staff's recommendations to the Finance Committee for review prior to Board approval. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRA RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE'S ACTION OF-BOARS O APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AYES: NOES: I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy ABSENT: ABAoan action taken anentered RMA:ag,, DISG"F�[7CI'SI'�iT VATI�1TIN: f titkd d on the minutes of�A �, G\G,pData\.Admin\Mitchkboc2003\Appravalof New CW Requirements 6-3-03.doe. the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attachment Orig.Div: Public Works(Admin Svcs) Contact: Mitch Avalon(313-2203) ct 7 Swoeten,County Administrator. B.Gilbert,GSD a���ST�D M.Shia;:Public Warks T.Erin,CAO A t 10, 2003 M.Avalon,Public Works K Mulumud Roan,M&VCD �+ G Connaughton,Mood Control S Hoffinan,CAG John Sweeten, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors D Freitas,Clean Water ProgramD.Barry,CornmunityDevelopment and County Administrator C Baltodano,Building Inspection E Meyc s,Agriculture K Stuart,Environmental Health G.Martin,Clerk of the Board t Executive Committee By n z Deputy SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NEW CLEAN WATER.REQUIREMENTS DATE: JUNE 10, 200 PAGE: 2 11. Fiscallmpact: The new clean water requirements will have a significantimpact on our Clean Water Program budget. Based upon a report by a consultant hired by the City of Walnut Creek,the cost over the next two years to modify our business practices,procedures,and policies will cost Contra Costa County approximately$200,000. The ongoing cost to the county'is hard to determiner until the implementation aspects have been determined,but it will include additional'staff needed to review plans for clean water requirements,`and monitor and maintain'clean water facilities. There will also be increased construction costs'for public and private projects to install clean water treatment facilities 111. Reasons for Recommendations and Backeround: A. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE On April''16, 2002, staff from the Contra Costa Clean Water Program and Flood'Control and Water Conservation District held a workshop before.the Board on a pending amendment of our Joint Municipal NPDES Permit.' Our NPDES permit, which specifies activities we must conduct to reduce non-point source pollution,was proposed to be amended by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, prior to its expiration'and normal reissuance. During the ensuing nine months, we provided updates to the Board on how the permit amendment process was progressing. The Regional Board held public hearings from November to February on our permit amendment. We met with Regional Board staff between Board hearings to negotiate and clarify the permit amendment requirements. In the end,the Regional Board approved a permit amendment on February 19,2003. The approved amendment was a huge success for Contra Costa County in that many of the requirements in the proposed amendment were revised as a result of our negotiations. The result is that Contra Costa County has the most"lenient'permit in the State of California. Our success was due to an Executive Committee selected specifically for the purpose of negotiating our permit amendment with the Regional'Board. The Executive Committee consisted of two City Managers (Joe Callabrigo with the Town of Danville and Mike Parness with the City of Walnut Creek),two City Engineers (Phil Harrington with the City of Antioch and Mike'Vogan with the City of Concord), two Planning Directors(Dennis Barry with the County and Jim Foresberg with the City of Concord),and two City Attorneys (Tom Haas with the City of Walnut Creek and Bill Galston with the City of Antioch).,' Donald Freitas and Torn Dalziel with the Contra Costa Clean. Water Program participated with the executive team and coordinated all of their efforts. These individuals should be recognized for their outstanding efforts in developing a successful strategy and successfully negotiating significant concessions on the part of the Regional Board. Another effort that helped the Regional Board staff understand the issues associated with the proposed permit provisions,was a meeting set up by Supervisor Gioia.The meeting was setup early in the process and was attended by the Regional Board's Executive Officer and Assistant Executive Officer plus Flood Control staff.The meeting helped clarify the County's issues for Regional Board Staff,which helped the subsequent efforts by the Executive Committee. SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NEW CLEAN WATER REQUIREMENTS DATE: JUNE 10,2003 PAGE: 3 B. WHAT WERE THE NEGOTIATED CHANGES? At the time our permit was proposed to be amended,the existing permit in Santa Clara County was the benchmark that was used by the Regional Board to establish our proposed amendment. During the negotiation process with the Regional Board and the Regional Board staff,many points were discussed and clarified: Attached is a table showing the differences between the Santa Clara permit and Contra Costa County's permit for new development and re-development standards. One ofthe biggest changes was in the Group 2 threshold for applying new clean water requirements. The Narita Clara permit threshold is 5,000 sq.ft. of impervious surfaces,whereas Contra Costa's is 10,000 sq.ft. In addition,there are more exemptions in the Contra Costa permit then in the Santa Clara permit. C. WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY? These new permit requirements will result in a change in the way we plan, review, design, construct, . inspect, and maintain development projects and County projects. These new requirements will significantly increase the cost of our Clean Water Program and other required improvements. Many departments will be impacted. Our Community Development,'Building Inspection and Public Works Departments in particular will all need to retrain and staff up to review plans for compliance with the new development standards`. Additional training will be necessary to monitor the effectiveness of the Clean Water improvements constructed by private developers or public projects. Under the new requirements, a sizeable public project, such as the Juvenile Hall project or the Family Law Center,would require the installation of Clean Water basin as part of the project to be maintained' in perpetuity by the County. Future new road projects will be required to collect stormwater draining from the pavement and treating it in a grassy swale or into a water quality pond or constructed wetland. Significant staff time will be required initially to establish new ordinances and process a General Plan amendment to include water quality principles and the enforcing regulations. Significant staff time will also be required to monitor the effectiveness of stormwater treatment facilities'and report the findings to the Regional Board each year. There will also be a significant cost associated with the maintenance of these facilities D. ACTIONS TO ADDRESS THE NEW REQUIREMENTS To address the new requirements,the County has formed a Clean Water Task'Force made up of several departments, and the Mosquito and Vector'Control District. On April 29, 2003 the first Task Force meeting was held'to provide an overview of the requirements for affected County Department Heads and staff. All of the various activities and tasks that must be accomplished to meet the new permit' requirements will be addressed by work teams in the Task Force, made up of staff from the effected departments for each of the various permit requirements. The public health consequences of establishing mosquito breeding grounds with the expected arrival of the West Nile Virus is critical and the staff from the 'Mosquito and Vector Control District will be part of the 'work teams assigned to development solutions for the permit'requirements. SUBJECT': APPROVAL OF NEW CLEAN WATER.REQUIREMENTS DATE: JUNE 10, 2003 PAGE: 4' We will also be working closely with Alameda County and San Mateo County,who have the same permit requirements that Contra Costa County has, and we will also work with Santa Clara County and other cities and counties in the Bay Area on collaboratively addressing the cyan water requirements. Some of the activities and tasks to meet the new requirements will have to be done by each individual city and county, however, some activities and tasks can be done at a county level and others at a regional level. The Contra Costa Clean Water Program has been working with the cities and the County to determine what activities would best be accomplished as a group by the Clean Water Program and which activities" will have to be performed by each city or the County. The Clean Water Program has developed a draft'' guidelinethat identifies which entity is responsible for each of the required activities in our permit amendment. Staff from the Contra'Costa'Clean Water Program are also working through Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies`Association (BASMAA) on issues that are best addressed at a regional level. E. REGIONAL BOARD APPROACH AND EFFECT OF DEVELOPMENT Implicit in these new requirements,is a change in the approach the Regional Boards are taking with cities and counties. Rather than relying on the County and cities to propose a'Stormwater Management Plan on how they will reduce'pollution, these new requirements reflect a more proactive approach, which emphasizes enforcement of more stringent''requirements. This:is in contrast to the largely educational approach required in our prior permit. In the past,the NPDES:.permit requirements focused only on water quality. The new requirements also attempt to deal with water guanti issues. The water quantity issues relate to the ability or opportunity for°stormwater to provide beneficial uses in the watershed. When development occurs in the watershed, impervious surfaces are created that prevent rain from percolating into the soil. In addition to eliminating a portion of the watershed that receives rainfall, impervious surfaces speed up the generation of runoff from the watershed. So impervious surfaces produce two results,more runoffgoing to the creeks and the runoff getting to the creeks in'a shorter time period. The effect of impervious surfaces changes the hydrologic,response of the watershed. The increased flows from the impervious surfaces destabilizes the creek system, in that the creek must accommodate more water and tends to erode its banks and down-cut its bed in an effort to increase capacity. This results in steepened creek banks,which triggers creek bank failures and additional loss of property along creeks and additional'erosion and sediment deposition downstream. Sediment is now considered one of the primary . pollutants'in the County's creeks and streams,particularly since heavy metals are easily transported with sediment. The reduction of rainfall landing on soil covered with impervious surfaces also results in a reduction in summer flows due to a reduced amount of water entering subsurface ground water reserves during the rainy season. To offset the effects of,impervious surfaces, the new development standards require local agencies to collect and treat stormwater, or allow it to infiltrate into the soil, on all applicable projects. This is designed to improve water quality and increase retention time of storwater`in the watershed. These, development standards will apply to public and private projects that meet the threshold criteria specified in the permit. (see Section C of the new requirements). The permit also requires agencies to review the impact a development has on the hydrology,of the watershed and on the stability of the stream system. This is accomplished through what the Regional Board is calling a Hydrograph Modification Management Plan,a countywide and/or watershed based plan that preserves and protects the watershed's hydrology and stream system. This would apply to many county capital improvement projects, road projects,' SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NEW CLEAN WATER REQUIREMENTS DATE: JUNE 10, 2003 PAGE: 5 development projects, redevelopment projects and building permits for certain single-family homes. Below is a more detailed description of these new development'standards as they were approved by the Regional,Board. Looming on the horizon are Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL)requirements,which will be even more costly. TMDL is a maximum amount of pollution allowed for a particular pollutant of concern'(e.g.,, trash, mercury, PCB, etc.) for each impaired watershed in the County. The calculation of the 'TMDL' pollutant'level is based on the amount of pollutant that a waterbody,.can receive and still meet water quality standards. The maximum amount is then allocated to point and non-point source discharges. Municipalities will then be given a pollutant discharge allocation,which will have to be meta F 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, 21105): For example: General Plan amendments, ordinances/standards,environmental review • Conditions of approval source control'measures' site design measures;,(maximize infiltration,retention,detention, and minimize impervious land coverage) treatment measures • management ofrunoff in accordance with Hydro Modification Management Plan no increase indirect discharge to 303(d)pollutant to impaired water bodies SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NEW CLEAN WATER REQUIREMENTS DATE: JUNE 10, 2043 PAGE: 6 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 homes not part of a larger common plan of development Roadway amenities-side walks,bicycle 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 existingpavement 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 15,2406) ■ 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 Genal:maximum created impervious surface area is treated for the minimum number of projects Considerations. • Land use types and potential pollutants and loadings' Low pollutant loading land types may be allowed to rely solely on applicable Start cat: the_Source techniques d. Numeric Sizing for Treatment Measures ■ Requires "applicable projects"to include treatment measures that capture and treat and/or infiltratestormwater runoff,and be sized in accordancewith one or more of the following volume and flow based hydraulic design.criteria: + Design criteria for treatment measures relying on volume capacity(e.g.,detention/retention units,infiltration structures) The maximized stermwater 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, 1 EF Manual ofPractice No. 231A CE Manual o Pr-actice No. S2,(1998),pages 175-178,or Volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80%or more capture,determined in accordance with the methodology in Appendix D of the California Stormwater Quality BestManagement Practice Handbook,(1993),using local rainfall data. Design criteria for treatment measures relying on flow capacity(e.g., swales, sand filters or wetlands) SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NEW CLEAN WATER REQUIREMENTS DATE. JUNE 10,2003 PAGE: 7 10°/o of the 50-year peak flow rate,or + Runoff flow produced by rain event equal to at least two tunes the 8511,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 operator + Legally enforceable(and transferable)agreements or mechanisms assigning O&M responsibility,and ensuring access to responsible agencies Verification of O&M program implementation and effectiveness in Annual Reports beginning September 2005 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"applicableprojects" where increased flaw and/or volume is likely to cause increased erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollution generation, or other water body impacts to beneficial uses clue to increased erosive farce • Exempted projects: + Transit village type developments within 1/2 mile of transit station and/or intermodal facility + "Redevelopment Areas"(defined are 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 50093 • More exemptions*: + New and redevelopment projects where impacts are"minimal" Discharges to hardened or underground conveyances downstream to their outfall into the San Francisco Bay/Delta Infill projects in highly developed watersheds where individual and cumulative impacts are minimal *dote:projects/areas subject to these exemptions roust be addressed in a Hydrograph' Modification Management Plan(HMP)due to Regional Board for approval May 15, 2005 ■ The Hydrograph Modification Management Plan includes,but is not limited to: Literature review SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NEW CLEAN WATER REQUIREMENTS DATE: JUNE 10, 2003 PAGE: 8 Protocol to evaluate potential hydrographchange 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 ■ 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 + stonnwater detention,retention,and infiltration + land use planning measures(e.g.,stream buffers,stream restoration activities, restoration-in-advance of floodplins,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 I/4 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 • Stream restoration or other activities that limit or mitigate impacts from excessive erosion or sedimentation SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NEW CLEAN WATER REQUIREMENTS DATE: JUNE 10,2003 PAGE: 9 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 trach and report alternative projects and exemptions granted ■ If no alternative compliance program is proposed,approved by Regional Board,and implemented by municipality by February 15,2005,then Interim alternative compliance may be granted by the municipality,if project proponent: Demonstrates onsite impracticability due to extreme limitations on spaeefor treatment, or below grade treatment options, and Sufficient assurance ofpr€rviding equivalent offsite mitigation within the same drainage basin draining to the sant receiving water, wherefeasible 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 in 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 the signature date,and t Understands the groundwater protect-ton principles and limitations applicable to the site and contained in Provision C.3,i. 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: Q Implementation of pollution prevention and source control BMPs at level appropriate to protect groundwater duality © Devices shall not cause or contribute to degradation of groundwater quality objectives • Devices must be maintained to maximize pollutant removal capabilities Q` Minimum distance of 10 feet(or more)between Mase of device and seasonal high groundwater table • Not within 100 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 ADT on any intersecting roadway) SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NEW CLEAN WATER.REQUIREMENTS DATE: JUNE 10,2003 PAGE: 10 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: ® Minimizing land disturbance • Minimizing impervious surfaces, and especially Directly Connected Impervious Areas (DCtAs) • Street design.standards H Parking lots • Clustering of structures and.pavement ® Lot-level measures(e.g.,'disconnected roof downspouts,driveways, landscaping detention and use of cisterns) • Preservation of high quality open spaces • Maintenance and/or restoration of riparian areas and wetlands • 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: ® Indoor mat/equipment wash racks for restaurants,or covered outdoor wash racks plumbed to sanitary sewer ® Covered trash and food compactor enclosures with sanitary sewer connection for durnpster drips and designed to prevent run-on to enclosed areas ® Sanitary sewer drains for swimming pools a Sanitary drained outdoor covered wash areas for vehicles, equipment, and accessories ® Sanitary sewer drain connections to take fire sprinkler test water ® Storm drain stenciling ® Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff,promotes surface infiltration where appropriate,minimizes pesticide and fertilizer use,and where feasible removes pollutants from stormwater m Appropriate covers, drains and storage precautions for outdoor material storage areas, loading docks,repair/maintenance bays, and fueling areas 1. Update General Plans ■ Requires municipality to amend:General Plans, 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.*) SUBJECT': APPROVAL OF NEW CLEAN WATER REQUIREMENTS DATE: JUNE 10, 2003 PAGE. 11` + 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 Plans due to CEQA requirements or constraints caused by applicable laws may warrant a delay to one or more implementation dates, subject to approval by RegionalBoard'. (Delays to the February 15, 2005 deadline must be reported in the Annual Report submitted on September 30,2004). m. 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- fo Increased pollutant discharges to receiving waters [a Significant'alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? ® ''` Increased impervious surfaces and runoff? [a Adverse impacts to drainage patterns from changes in runoff`flow,rates and volumes? ® , Increased erosion'in the watershed? ® Contribute:a 303(4)pollutant to a impaired water body? ® ' Potential significant impact on surface or groundwater duality,to marine, fresh or wetland waters? ® Increased potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance to surface or groundwater water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?' • Impacts to aquatic,wetland or riparian habitat? G. FUNDING These new clean water requirements will result in a significant increase in the costs of our Contra Costa Clean Water Program and our unincorporated County Clean Water program activities. The County and most ofte cities are at,or near,the maximum assessment rate for their stormwater parcel assessments. It is certain that new funding will be needed after the transition period when the new requirements are in full effect, which will be in about three years. There'are several things that staff will be, and have been, working on. First, we will continue to apply for',grants'to maximize''our revenue from the State and Federal Agencies. We will soon be applying for a Hydrograph Modification Management Planning grant and a grant to explore the possibility of establishing a mitigation bank for regional solutions for new development and redevelopment projects. In addition, staff has been working with our Congressional representatives for federal funding of our Hydrograph Modification Management Plan, For the past two years,we have also 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 clean water requirements.The most promising legislation at this time is ACA 10, sponsored by Assemblymeber Harmon,which if adapted and subsequently approved by the voters, would allow stormwater assessments to be generated similar,',to a Water District'or Sanitary District. AB 204,sponsored by Assemblymember Nation,would add$4.00 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 cities, counties,and other agencies that would apply for projects of a clean water or open space nature. SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NEW CLEAN WATER..REQUIREMENTS DATE: JUNE 10, 20013 PAGE• 12 H. NEXT STEPS Based on the new permit requirements outlined above and the impacts they will have on the cities and the County, the fallowing actions are proposed by staff. It should be noted that Contra Costa County's NPDES permit will be up for reissuance in July of 2004, which will give the Regional Water Quality Control Board another opportunity to modify out permit requirements, a) Direct Flood Control and Water Conservation District staff to do the following: • To continue to work collaboratively with the cities through the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Management Committee and the City County Engineering Advisory Committee and the Public'' Managers Association on the new clean water requirements. • ' To continue to develop hard technical and scientific data specific to the conditions in Contra Costa County to better implement the permitrequirements. • To pursue the collaborative effort at the State level for identifying funding,such as stormwater':utility legislation,to fund'the new permit requirements. • To continue to work collaboratively with the other counties in the Bay Area on permit requirements that are more tailored to regional conditions in the Bay Area. • To continue our excellent working relationship with the Regional Boards, and develop implementation strategies and plans for the permit requirements that best suit the conditions in Contra Costa County. • To explore the possibility of obtaining federal''funding or federal grants for implementing non point source pollution controls. • To continue to monitor legislation statewide for legislative changes that would be advantageous for Contra Costa County. b) Direct Public Works staff to do the following: • To work with other County departments on a'Clean Water Task Force to effectively implement the new permit requirements. • To continue to fully define the implications to Contra Costa County of these new requirements including staffing needs,procedural changes and funding needs. IV. Consequences of Neeative Action: Report would not be accepted and funding strategies would not be developed. Non-compliance with our Municipal NPDES permit requirements may result in large fines and more stringent requirements with our next NPDES permit. p w 15 E m o c C m O to N C? C �1 C CA iU CD O t t0j'r- = .0 -0 �C _ a0) � Mvo0Ec c aoc oma, a L c C v m m c3 -a •- m a) m « L- 0 � c.o 0 �s E ' L � aa)i o • x. ,c �' a m C (D > .0 0 mco um3 tea' c m E ciE v m +. ta a U Nm c) c cra W a: =- m x CL c to to c� iCiS (a Q co s- _ fk3 R7 a a) CL G3 � 0 c r y +mss CO C m oia c C c m .. > o , a .- 0 3 �, c um �. m0) o4) � W a. M aC3 _ Ci Ecu c �' o ac- ccc Ep a > CL c � a � � �� �� 7. Co m E ,c Sao ca of oma. O � m 3 z C-`u v3 � cno. CLC � aOi - = EEa; +� E o m m I- v '� o cs >N Z �' -0 oCL ° i o V E 45 c c-mi. rmsy c o.o . E ro ; m a) u U) c A� m - CL m 0 m `m �,; o o m � mc15 ur:= c ttsU1- y.. m �—� N C m ca �^ m p v M M 0 L s o E C Co m � � � . O oma. _ m o o �, w v, mo .0 "L m m M CL 3 E 5) im o e a x c US O r M=3 E a E h3 C) C N C C O C, Co� C +_ m ,dx + C m + -p cy c7 _ a > N a +` Co �' O tt5 CSS +m+ ! N L'�. �, t!) v... (D E A t; a its a RJ C1#- C uD C m cr ?' o m „ E m - cCE0 EC t .. c ca3 cv y3 3 _ cu�-Ls vt 'i oo =r rn EcCc a . m 0 a. � oaci � cr� �- m O y ate © c S ° E 'in � ° tCv 2 CDasCD p 3E v ca c L— N CL E X c� y, E eta � c w o tos ty C CL 0 4) cYr- m m ciO4 E oiy . cCSSa) m a .- .rmc cn � c mm ,� «• 4) (D CL M O 0E ° C sa') c 'ca5 m �i �? t� �, � Ncc�v � E. ;� � aos � � � '� m � u, y C � Cvo, 0 � n sC m'� _ � mac -a (D � m C Comic Y 60 E� c c r7t 'a4,- o vain o c :t:: me �i o a .... m a Rrj s a m N - E o C O o m C7 w {. L t` U c .� ..+ w a m .0 E 3 n. o C:CL 0 0 , ° us aos m c c 3 ° � c :� ,.- y C CU o m a ca o a a m a o o cts oti m o .. o . cu m co a es a 1- - o m to w q m ,y. .-, o tii ° m t: ° � (7M �n . a`soBiu gym, ,m � O "ah- cC ofl0o 0 C Y a - .: MCD , C w .c� a .. y m m C r3 �- ,, Q L i s ao a m CSm cmGlns +. ,, ma) � WMY � ^.� mCS� M ° c C o ,4 ° "� aster > C (D E c .. C o o C - � ,, .. .. mac' v, � " mom o 0 -.0 o caro •' E u, m ` Esa3mc s' ascp cmo vN m3 C: E � E ,. G. E � ' = Co Eou, Ex C oa0 � m cs� cr oaEo moa,._ E m C C -. w. " u> .0 o U a c Cmj r Ct7 �' m O c ' m m a ma am rmc cno �' a moot r� a' mmai � a m ... a i.r E E G) aCS 0 Q N ZS tt3 w Cl tts L ca S p 0,> ... a) Co d) th C E • CO to o c {L ` 4) Ys Ca a a 4' ' m mnmmm mo vncmm8Emm c 't� Emam ' � m ' v m CL X C� L a) r t7 C p m .,_ t- m . 8 .1- 0) Q EvFLLQac d h- CN as tTs °►- to O ti cYi �? U ca tca tJ �i " O c� ,U o cia c ro aCZ 8 m t co 4Q Z d Q. Gam � cc cz c: Z3 1 � Z .05 . O Olzvj C tTi LLt Q 1 X- 2 � c1 ,a) CL ° cv k 4- a b v k C m � co 'a) w -, wb cu cu m coo. m ° C IM Ems ? ` a) '° w t uj '` co w The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County, California IN THE MATTER OFRECOG l2CNG � and expressing appreciation for the work by the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Executive Committee on negotiating an amendment with the San Francisco Bay } Regional Water Quality Control Board. ) RESOLUTION NO. 2003i � WHEREAS, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board is scheduled to reissue Contra Costa County's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit in July 2004, and WHEREAS, the San l^rancisc � trol Board declared it's intent to amend Contra Costa C a PDE er4 tri a , 96tnctudo new development and redevelopment , and Ilk, N "r n t /HEREAS, n fiie> ed by t ; Raioiia " wcfu�t � ravisions that Yp would be a j4 m lj fiC�r Centra asta CauntY� d tie Cities�t plc r , a , u l/YHE S the n m ti wer,6 aced with sevf� U�t deftcit.V,-%cti s d could not rk a +�► `x � d andate, at ASS ',tie Contra Costa:Clean Water Pram aesirect� " 'adify s � f the Emit a n P %provi tons to be mare ca�stent with tteeds of , aster ur�r, N en ugh t `a 4visions had been #pp ved far Sant .N a Cogry°:in 2, lr as a 3y ea St ard, and E 'eE `� a 4 HEIt F 5; the Lantrai Program estab an= mmitt om t of wffwq"i�rs-l(doe..Cam X the Ta * Pame h —M elr}r'twr City 1E, torch a P[ann,t (Dennis Barry with dnqq;' a CtA Tom' s t " f; r#off E3rltr :a ori .y �� ` �$ ��► r a��nag ,wit ,_ ► e gore ccs �et+ ermit rovis zaa.7:rt-- oft several mon s of discus an ! p, su ,k r► .. a antra a rmit pro nincant V 1�fER , as of t successful neg€ tiati fii� o was able to protide ��ila unty with a permifffhat ftp-1�' ens ravisions in the State of t lav NOW, TI EREFt ► # G ' h pk sc ` ontra Costa County hereby recognizes they Cern r t s to negotiate favorable permit provisions with the a preciation for the many hours MIA of hard work to do so. PASSED by a unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors members present this 10th day of June 2003. ltw.r , HAIRMAN MARK DeSAULNIER Witness my hand and the Seal of the Board of supervisors affixed on this Id"day of June,2003. JOHN 1NETEt+I,Cleric of the Board of supervisors and Count Administrator. t ` By; "` , Deputy RESOLUTION NO. 2003/ 319