HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.1 Municipal Regional Permit 2 Update
STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK
File #1000-70
CITY COUNCIL
DATE:November 3, 2015
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM:
Christopher L. Foss, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Municipal Regional Permit 2 Update
Prepared by Martha Aja, Associate Planner
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) issued a permit to
the City of Dublin and 75 other Bay Area permittees to discharge stormwater. The current
permit, referred to as the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), expired on December 1, 2014. The
Water Board released the tentative order for the second Municipal Regional Permit (MRP 2) on
May 11, 2015. This permit will replace the existing first MRP Permit (MRP 1). It is anticipated
that the Water Board will adopt the MRP 2 on November 18, 2015. The MRP 2 includes new
unfunded mandates other than those already in place.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Implementation of the MRP 2 will result in significant costs, including purchase and installation
of full trash capture devices, development of a Green Infrastructure Plan and increased staff
time for trash monitoring. Complete cost implications are unknown at this time, but staff
anticipates that it would potentially require over $2.25 million in added infrastructure, staff and
consultant costs over the next four fiscal years. On June 16, 2015, the City Council set aside
$2.25 million in General Fund Assigned Reserves for MRP 2 implementation. This funding will
be used for the purchase, construction and installation of full trash capture devices in addition to
the development of a Green Infrastructure Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report on the MRP 2 and select a
Councilmember to provide testimony at the November 18, 2015 Water Board hearing.
Submitted By Reviewed By
Community Development Director Assistant City Manager
ITEM NO. 8.1
Page 1 of 5
DESCRIPTION:
Background
Stormwater runoff contains many types of pollutants from the urban and industrial landscape.
Stormwater runoff or urban runoff does not receive treatment in most cases, and is the single
largest source of surface water pollution to Bay Area waters. The federal Clean Water Act was
amended in 1987 to address urban stormwater runoff pollution of the nation’s waters.In 1990
the US EPA established Phase 1 of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) stormwater program. The Phase 1 program for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4s) required affected jurisdictions to implement a stormwater management program
to control polluted discharges from the MS4.
The Water Board issued county-wide municipal stormwater permits in the early 1990s to Phase
1 operators of MS4s. On October 14, 2009, the Water Board re-issued these county-wide
municipal stormwater permits as one Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit to regulate
stormwater discharges from municipalities and local agencies in Alameda, Contra Costa, San
Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, and the cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo.
The MRP expired on December 1, 2014. The Water Board released the tentative order for the
second MRP or MRP 2 on May 11, 2015. There are several provisions within the MRP 2 that will
be difficult for compliance. If a permittee is unable to comply with a provision within the permit,
the permittee would be in noncompliance, which could expose an agency to potentially
significant fines from the State and third-party lawsuits.
The Water Board held two public workshops on the draft permit (June 10, 2015 and July 8,
2015). City of Dublin staff spoke at both workshops and highlighted City’s concerns on several
permit requirements, including lack of scientific rigor and analysis on the efficacy of new
requirements. The City also submitted a formal comment letter (Attachment 1). The City of
Dublin and the majority of permittees subject to the permit have requested revisions to the
permit. The permit adoption hearing is currently scheduled for November 18, 2015.
ANALYSIS
The MRP 1 includes a myriad of required activities including, but not limited to, the following:
commercial business inspections, construction site inspections, illicit discharge response, public
outreach, hot spot clean-ups and trash reduction. The MRP 2 includes additional requirements
above and beyond those in the MRP 1. The notable, new unfunded mandates include
development and implementation of a Green Infrastructure Plan, implementation of City’s Trash
Reduction Plan and reduction of pollutants of concern.
Green Infrastructure Planning & Implementation
The MRP 2 requires permittees to complete and implement a Green Infrastructure Plan to treat
stormwater runoff from the City’s existing and future roadway infrastructure network using
vegetated areas before discharging the water to the City’s storm drain system, while also not
exceeding the maximum level of pollutants allowed in the water being discharged. Despite
repeated requests from City of Dublin staff, the Water Board was unable to produce an example
plan that would not only treat the stormwater but also meet the discharge limits. This is a key
staff concern since the full cost implications of implementing such a plan are unknown due to
the fact that such a plan has not been developed elsewhere.
Page 2 of 5
In the current MRP, new development projects and new street construction projects are required
to treat stormwater runoff on-site using vegetated areas, but there is no requirement to treat
water when the City conducts street maintenance activities, such as pavement rehabilitation.
One of staff’s concerns with retrofitting existing roadways to incorporate green infrastructure-
type vegetated stormwater treatment areas is the limited amount of right-of-way typically
available. The need for additional right-of-way to construct green infrastructure improvements
will create significant financial burdens on future roadway maintenance projects and limit the
ability to incorporate other roadway improvements such as parking and bike lanes.
The green infrastructure requirements will require staff and consultant resources to develop and
implement such a plan. The tentative order requires all permittees to develop a framework for
development of its Green Infrastructure Plan by June 30, 2017. Among other things, the
framework needs to include the following items:
1. A mechanism to prioritize and map areas for potential projects and planned
projects;
2. Targets for the amount of impervious surfaces within the City to be retrofitted;
3. Standard specifications and typical design details necessary to incorporate green
infrastructure in projects; and
4. A process for tracking and mapping completed projects.
It is anticipated that the development of the Green Infrastructure Plan will cost approximately
$150,000-$200,000. There may be an opportunity for some collaboration and cost sharing
among the Alameda County jurisdictions, which could potentially decrease the estimated cost
associated with the development of the plan. The City will also need to periodically review and
update the Green Infrastructure Plan.
Additionally, there will be cost implications to treat the public stormwater runoff using green
infrastructure. The City will incur increased costs for the construction of green infrastructure.
There is no funding source for green infrastructure projects. Transportation funding is extremely
limited in what it can be used for; therefore, the City will need to identify an additional funding
source for the construction of green infrastructure projects.
The City of Union City recently completed a green streets project that is three city blocks long.
The construction cost of the project was $1,000,000. The total project cost (including design,
construction and inspections) was over $1.25 million, or a little over $400,000 a block.
There may also be some land use implications that will result from green infrastructure projects.
It is very likely that private property will drain into the green infrastructure that the City constructs
within the public right-of-way. Identifying the best locations to site green infrastructure will
require a significant amount of coordination between City departments and private property
owners.
Trash Reduction
Trash reduction requirements within the MRP 2 requires permittees to reduce trash discharges
to receiving waters by 70% by July 1, 2017 and 80% by July 1, 2019.
The City will have to install full trash capture devices in developed portions of the City (i.e.
downtown area, Sierra Court, Scarlett Drive, etc.) to meet the trash reduction requirements in
the MRP 2. There are several areas in the downtown area that are not treated by full trash
capture devices, including several areas in-between Amador Plaza Road and San Ramon
Page 3 of 5
Road. Full trash capture devices require financial resources to pay for the upfront cost of the
device in addition to the long- term maintenance of the device. Each large full trash capture
device costs approximately $400,000 (includes the cost of the device and the design &
construction costs). The City currently has a capital improvement project in the budget and has
allocated $400,000 for the installation of a full trash capture device in the downtown area. An
additional $2.25 million in General Fund reserves, set aside by the City Council in September
2015, will enable the City to achieve the required 70% and 80% trash reduction requirements.
As of July 1, 2015, the estimated trash reduction in Dublin is 60%; of which 55% is attributable
to the installation of full trash capture devices. There are a total of 503 public and private full
trash capture devices installed within the City of Dublin. The full trash capture devices installed
within the City treat a combined 707 acres. The remainder of the estimated trash reduction (5%)
is from jurisdictional wide measures (Single-Use Bag Ban Ordinance and partial polystyrene
ban).
Permittees have requested several changes to the trash control requirements, including,
increased reduction credit for source control (e.g. product bans), on-land and creek clean-ups
and public outreach. Additionally, permittees have requested that compliance be by
implementation of trash control actions and not by visual assessments.
Visual Assessments
The alternative to installing full trash capture devices is to implement other reduction measures
and then conduct visual assessments to demonstrate that the reduction measures are effective
in reducing trash. Compliance through visual assessments is subjective and potentially
infeasible due to the variable nature of trash generation. The MRP 2 requires visual
assessments to be done covering ten percent (10%) of a jurisdiction’s trash management areas.
Water Board staff was unable to provide a scientific rationale for quantification of trash control
using visual assessment despite repeated requests.
This requirement is burdensome and would result in additional staff time. The City’s approach
has favored the installation of full trash capture devices over other control measures because
there is not adequate staffing to conduct the required visual assessments.
Pollutants of Concern
The MRP 2 includes numeric reduction requirements for pollutants of concern, most notably
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCBs). PCBs were domestically manufactured from 1929 until their
manufacture was banned in 1979. They have a range of toxicity and vary in consistency from
thin, light-colored liquids to yellow or black waxy solids. Due to their non-flammability, chemical
stability, high boiling point, and electrical insulating properties, PCBs were used in hundreds of
industrial and commercial applications including electrical, heat transfer, and hydraulic
equipment; as plasticizers in paints, plastics, and rubber products; in pigments, dyes, and
carbonless copy paper; and many other industrial applications.
The permit mandates a three kg reduction in the discharge of PCBs. Of this amount, two kg is
attributed to managing PCB waste during building demolition. PCBs are widely distributed in the
environment. The management of PCBs during building demolition will be very complicated and
potentially very expensive. Such a program has not been implemented anywhere in the country.
Of greatest concern to the permittees is that there is no science that demonstrates a connection
between building demolition and PCBs in stormwater runoff. This data gap was confirmed by
Water Board staff at a recent “PCB in Building Demolition Workshop.”
Page 4 of 5
Member agencies may not be able to document the mandated PCB reductions. To address this
concern, permittees have requested that the numeric limits be changed to action levels. If the
actions taken do not achieve the anticipated load reduction, municipalities can try additional
actions or new actions without the threat of noncompliance.
Issue of Compliance
The most important unresolved issue relates to how Water Board staff will determine
compliance. Noncompliance carries the possibility of significant fines. Under the Clean Water
Act, third parties can sue noncompliant permittees. It is essential to our interest as a permittee
that if we diligently pursue actions specified in the permit, we will be found to be in compliance.
Water Board staff believes that the permit should hold permittees legally responsible for
achieving specified reductions in stormwater pollutants discharged into waterways, on a stated
schedule. At the same time, Water Board staff acknowledges that many of those reductions may
not be achievable. This is a big concern for staff that Water Board is knowingly creating a
mandate with full knowledge that many permittees will fail to achieve the mandated
requirements.
MRP 2 Adoption Hearing
At the November 18 hearing, the Water Board will consider the revised tentative order along
with a change sheet that will include any changes made to the permit at the hearing. Upon
conclusion of the public hearing, actions that the Water Board could pursue include delaying
action, adopting the tentative order as presented or adopting the tentative order with changes
made at the hearing. Past history suggests that it is unusual for the Board to agree to changes
at the hearing.
The County stormwater programs, including Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa
Clara, are seeking support from elected officials to influence the action taken at the Water Board
hearing. City staff recommends that a Dublin Councilmember speak at the November 18
adoption hearing. City staff will also attend the hearing and will develop the talking points.
Speakers are generally allotted three minutes each.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:
Not Required.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. City of Dublin Comment Letter (dated June 29, 2015) response letter
to MRP changes
Page 5 of 5