Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.2 UrbanRunoffCleanWater CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT City Council Meeting Date: May 28, 1991 SUBJECT: Agreement for Filing a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) and for Implementing a Program to Control Urban Runoff. (Report by Public Works Director Lee Thompson) EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1) Resolution approving agreement 2) Agreement to implement the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program 3) Report on a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) for the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program. 4) Urban Runoff Clean Water Management Program consultant justification for hiring additional staff. 5) Proposed Work Program RECOMMENDATION:~.i) Adopt resolution approving the agreement and ~~ 2 authorize Mayor to execute. ) Direct Staff to pursue a storm water utility and maintenance fee for the 1991-92 fiscal year and/or begin proceedings for the long-term funding of this program through an assessment district. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Staff has estimated a total first year cost of $144,000, which is broken down in the following paragraphs. The consultant preparing the permit application has estimated that Dublin's annual program costs will be $380,000. The consultant's breakdown is shown in parentheses. This estimate is based on an average small city. Dublin already publishes newsletters, sweeps streets on a semi-monthly basis, subscribes to household hazardous waste programs, and cleans catch basins. This is why Staff estimates are so much lower than the consultant's. Staff also anticipates a continuation of the reduced development activity in Dublin which would reduce the consultant's estimated staff requirements for the first year. Future years' costs could increase if additional measures need to be taken to clean up the storm flows. $77,000 ($77,000) to Alameda County for admini- stration, common program activities including stream monitoring and permit fees. $32,000 ($180,000) for in-house staff members to plancheck, inspect, and administer local program activities. $35,000 ($123,000) for fact sheet and brochure, slides, stencils, paint, and other supplies; local media costs, providing training for the street sweeper and storm drain cleaning crew, extra inlet cleaning, and local administrative costs. ITEM NO.~ OPIES TO: Shelley Sack, Alameda County Public Works Steven Ritchie, Calif. Regional Water QCB DESCRIPTION: HISTORY The Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program (Program) was initiated to comply with the regulatory requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board's San Francisco Region (Regional Board) 1986 Basin Plan. The Basin Plan required the implementation of a program to evaluate sources of pollutants in urban runof~ (primarily storm flows), to estimate pollutant loads, to identify pollutant control measures, and to implement a program of pollutant controls. In mid-1987 representatives from the 14 cities in Alameda County, Alameda County, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), and Zone 7 of the District met with Regional Board staff to define the steps necessary to comply with the Basin Plan requirements. A Task Force committee consisting of representatives from 7 cities, the District, and Zone 7 of the District, was established to direct the completion of the needed work. The overall day-to-day management and coordination of the Program has been and continues to be conducted by District staff. In late 1987 the Task Force selected Eisenberg, Oliveri & Associates, Inc., (EOA) to prepare the Study Plan required by the RegionaI Board. The Study Plan included a detailed description of the existing data sources, land use and demographic information, and a work plan to monitor and model storm water quality, flows, and pollutant loadings on water courses which empty into San Francisco Bay. The Study Plan was completed in May of 1988 and unanimously approved by the Regional Board at a public hearing in July of 1988. In September 1988, the Task Force selected Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) to conduct the field monitoring, laboratory analysis, modeling, and control program evaluation as defined within the Study Plan. Except for a lack of normal rainfall, elements of the monitoring program are generally proceeding as planned. In July 1990, WCC prepared an interim report which summarized the data collected through April 1990. The data show that in storm water runoff, the concentrations of copper, and on occasion lead and zinc, exceed EPA's acute ambient water quality criteria values for these metals. A final report on the results of the monitoring, modeling, and loads assessment is scheduled for completion in August 1991. This date is about three months later than originally planned because of the unexpected lack of rainfall events through January of 1991. REQUIRED ACTIVITIES One of the key activities which will be conducted as part of ~he'~g~eemen~~ includes filing for an NPDES permit by the agencies as co-applicants. The purpose of the NPDES permit is to monitor and clean up the City's storm drain water which flows into local creeks and eventually to the Bay. Similiar to Santa Clara Valley Water District, which was the first in the Bay Area to be permitted, this will result in the Regional Board adopting an NPDES permit for urban runoff which will name all of the Alameda county co-applicants as co- permittees. It is expected that an NPDES permit will be adopted for the Alameda County agencies in September of 1991, and that the permit will be for a period of five years. It is anticipated that the permit will be renewed after five years and that the urban runoff program will be a permanent responsibility of the municipalities and other entities within Alameda County. Another of the key activities provided by the Agreement will be to implement the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program (see attached report). Program activities can be divided into two categories: those which are of benefit to all the participants (termed General Program activities); and those which are the responsibility of individual participants and which provide individual benefits (termed Individual Program activities). Examples of General Program activities include program administration, water quality monitoring, and some aspects of the program information and education activities. The Individual Program includes such activities as controls on erosion and sedimentation from construction sites, street sweeping, and storm drain cleaning. The Agreement provides for the creation of a Management Committee whose members will be appointed by the City Managers or their equivalent from each of the participating entities. The Management Committee will provide overall -2- Program direction and review, recommend an annual budget for approval by the participants, and provide budget oversight. It is expected that many of the City representatives currently serving on the Task Force will be selected to serve on the Management Committee. According to the Agreement, the allocation of voting strength among the participants represented on the Management Committee is proportional to the General Program cost shares. A quorum for conducting business requires that a majority of the participants to the Agreement be present, regardless of voting strength. Approval of actions, however, requires a two-thirds affirmative vote of all the allocated votes. This requirement of two-thirds affirmative vote is intended to encourage the building of a consensus on issues. Under the direction of the Management Committee, the District will administer and coordinate the program. Some of the activities for which the District will be responsible include preparing draft annual budgets and status reports on Program activities, consolidating and submitting reports prepared by the participants as required by the NPDES permit, executing and administering contracts needed to implement the Program, and other related activities described in the Agreement. The District's role of coordinating and providing the overall management of the Program is similar to what the District is currently doing. This is also similar to the role the Santa Clara Valley Water District is performing for the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Program. The Agreement also contains a statement of intent by the District to fund both the Individual and General Program costs for cities located in District Zones with Benefit Assessment Programs to the extent such funding is available. Dublin is not in one of these assessment districts and will be responsible for its individual share of the costs. The Agreement provides that each of the participants fully comply with the NPDES permit conditions which are applicable to their Individual Program and its identified share of the General Program. The Agreement requires each of the participants to submit agreed-upon reports to the District which document implementation of the Program and compliance with the NPDES permit provisions. COSTS AND FUNDING The General Program activities, estimated at $3,300,000 per year, are proposed to be funded by the member agencies on a proportional basis, one-half on population and one-half on land area. Dublin's share of the cost and voting rights is 2.34% of the total ($77,000). Some of the agencies already have an assessment district to cover these costs. Other cities are contemplating the establishment of utility fees or new assessment districts. Following are several methods for funding the costs of the NPDES permit and program: 1) Storm Water Utility Maintenance Fee. This method of funding the program is a fee rather than a tax; therefore, this method can be implemented with City Council approval after a public hearing. This fee could be collected monthly by the City; however, it would not be cost-effective to do so, as the City currently has no monthly billing system. Two possible means of collection would be with the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD)'s bi-monthly billing, if DSRSD would agree to do so, or with the County's collection of property taxes if the County would agree to do so. In the event the fee is not paid, the City would have to collect the unpaid fees through the court system. Ail of the fees collected would be under the control of the City. If the City of Dublin were to implement a fee program, the annual cost per household would probably be in the $20 per household range (or about $1.70 per month). If this option were selected, the cost of collections would be more costly than noncollection because of the inability of the City to cut off utility services of delinquent fee payers. Palo Alto is using this system, but they have incorporated it into their City-controlled utility services. Staff would not recommend this type of funding -3- mechanism on a long-term basis, but it would appear to be the most practical solution for the first year because of the short time it would take to implement. 2) Storm Water Utility and Maintenance Assessment District under the 1982 Benefit Assessment District. The formation of this assessment district is subject to'Public Hearing, and a positive majority vote of those voting in an election. The earliest that an election could be held and the district formed would be at the upcoming NOvember election at a cost of approximately $3,000. Due to the November election date, assessments could not be collected in the 1991-92 fiscal year (1991-92 assessments must be to the Alameda County Auditor by the third week in August 1991). The process for maintaining the Assessment District would be similar to the City's Street Lighting Assessment District in that a Public Hearing would be held each year to set assessments for the following fiscal year. Staff would propose to spread the costs over the commercial, as well as the residential properties. The first year assessments would probably be in the $20 per single-family household range based on a spread similar to the existing Street Lighting .~Maintenance Assessment District. 3) Mello-Roos District. This form of funding is very similar to the Assessment District funding; however, it would take a two-thirds affirmative vote of the registered voters to implement. 4) Utility Users Tax. This funding mechanism would require a positive majority vote for passage. The City Attorney is researching the applicability of using this tax for storm wauer improvement maintenance. 5) General Fund. The General Fund could be used to fund the program; ~however, this will take monies away from other operating and capital improvement programs. ALTERNATE TO THE COUNTYWIDE PROGRAM Dublin could elect to remain independent as opposed to joining with other Alameda County agencies; however, the stream monitoring costs and other administrative costs would be much higher as the City of Dublin-c0Uld not spread these costs to other agencies. If Dublin elects to do nothing, the Regional Water Quality Control District would impose a plan' on'DuBIin, one in which the City would not have input into or control over. If'Dublin did not then follow through in implementing the permit, Dublin would be subject to legal action under the Federal Environmental Protection Act. Staff recommends that the City Council (1) adopt the resolution approving the agreement and (2) pursue the Stormwater Utility Maintenance Fee and/or the Maintenance Assessment District to fund this new program. RESOLUTION NO. -91 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT THE ALAMEDA COUNTY URBAN RUNOFF GLEAN WATER PROGRAM WHEREAS, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that Alameda County and the cities within Alameda County implement a program to evaluate sources of pollutants in urban runoff, to estimate pollutant loads, to identify pollutant control measures, and to implement a program of pollutant controls; and WHEREAS, the program includes applying for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, implementing General and Individual Program Activities, and creation of a Management Committee to provide direction and review the Program budget; and WHEREAS, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District will administer and coordinate the program under the direction of the Management Committee; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby approve the Agreement to Implement the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized to execute the agreement. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of May, 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT THE ALAMEDA COUNTY URBAN RUNOFF CLEAN WATER PROGRAM AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ALAMEDA COUNTY URBAN RUNOFF CLEAN WATER PROGRAM THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 1991 by and between the following undersigned public agencies, all which are referred to collectively as the Parties. THE ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a local public agency of the State of California; Zone 7 of ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a local public agency of the State of California; COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a subdivision of the State of California; CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF ALBANY, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF BERKELEY, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF DUBLIN, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF EMERYVILLE, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF FREMONT, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF HAYWARD, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF LIVERMORE, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF NEWARK, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF PIEDMONT, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF PLEASANTON, a municipal corporation of the State of California; CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, a municipal corporation of the State of California; and CITY OF UNION CITY, a municipal corporation of the State of California. RECITALS A. The 1986 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan), adopted by the Regional Water Quality control Board in implementation of the Federal Clean Water Act, requires that the PARTIES develop a Program to control the discharge of pollutants from urban runoff. B. In furtherance of their responsibilities pursuant to the Basin Plan, the PARTIES have previously entered into a series of agreements to jointly fund the cost of preparing an action plan to evaluate nonpoint source pollutants, monitor identified pollutants and develop control measures to mitigate or reduce nonpoint sources of pollutants. Collectively, the measures undertaken pursuant to the previous agreements and anticipated to continue pursuant to this Agreement, are known as the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program (hereinafter ,'Program"). The Program contains certain elements which provide a general benefit to the parties (such as monitoring, public education, program administration, etc.), and these elements of joint responsibility among the parties are termed the "General Program" In addition, the Program contains other elements which are an individual Party responsibility and which provide individual benefits (such as construction site controls, catch basin cleaning, and illicit and illegal connection inspections, monitoring and enforcement), and these elements are termed the "Individual Programs". A description of the General and Individual Programs' elements, major tasks, schedules, and budgets will be developed as part of the "Work Plan for cities in Alameda County, Alameda County, and the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to file for a NPDES Permit" dated August 24, 1990. C. The previous Agreements that have been executed are the following: The November 10, 1987 "Agreement Regarding Evaluation of Non-Point Source of Water Pollution" and the October 17, 1989 "Agreement Regarding Implementation of Nonpoint Source Control Evaluation Program". In addition there is a pending agreement titled "Agreement Regarding Development of a Proposed Alameda County Nonpoint Source Control Management Plan" which will provide funding through June 1991 for implementation of the August 24, 1990 work plan. D. The PARTIES desire to continue the Program and to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of ensuring continued participation, in terms of cost and administrative responsibilities. E. This Agreement does not amend or supersede any prior agreement among the PARTIES regarding the Program, but is to be read as in accord with and implementation thereof. F. The Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) is a local public agency of the State of California duly organized and existing, and empowered to conserve water and to provide maintenance and flood control management of the water courses and has the authority to control the discharge of surface waters to its facilities. The County of Alameda and all of the cities therein are subdivisions of the State with authority to control the discharge of surface waters from their respective jurisdictions. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. A Management Committee is hereby created to provide overall program direction, review and recommend an annual budget for approval by the PARTIES, and budget oversight, all in accordance with the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program. Management Committee members, and their alternates, shall be appointed by the City Manager or the equivalent of the respective Parties and a confirming letter sent to the authorized representative of the District. The Management Committee shall adopt bylaws for its governance. (a) Each Party to this agreement is allocated the number (or fraction thereof) of votes shown in Exhibit A. This allocation of voting strength is based on the formulas stated in Exhibit B to the Agreement. (b) A quorum for the conduct of business by the Management Committee shall be a majority of the voting Parties to the Agreement. The voting strength allocated to a Party shall not be considered in the determination of a quorum. (c) Approval of actions by the Management Committee shall require a two-thirds affirmative vote of all allocated votes as shown in Exhibit A. No action shall be taken by the District which requires expenditures by any party other than the District without prior Management Committee approval. 2. Pursuant to direction of the Management Committee, the District shall administer and coordinate the Program, which duties include but are not limited to: (a) Applying on behalf of the PARTIES to become co- applicants for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit; (b) Preparing draft annual budget and, periodic status reports on Program activities and expenditure and distri- buting same to PARTIES at least quarterly; (c) Consolidating and submitting reports prepared by the several PARTIES required by the NPDES permit; (d) Letting and administering approved consultant con- tracts according to District policies and procedures and considering other members' requirements. All consultant contracts will contain hold harmless and indemnity pro- visions and insurance requirements for the benefit of all .PARTIES; (e) Conducting audits of consultant contracts in accordance with District policies and procedures; (f) Maintaining knowledge of and advising the PARTIES regarding current and proposed state and federal policies, regulations and programs, that impact nonpoint source pollutant control programs; assisting the PARTIES in development and presentation of positions on these issues before local, State and Federal agencies; (g) Preparing an annual report on the implementation of the Program; (h) Representing the PARTIES in participation in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association; and (i) Formally advising the appropriate State and Federal agencies of termination or amendment of this Agreement. 3. The PARTIES accept and agree to perform the following duties: (a) Each will authorize a representative to apply for an NPDES permit as co-applicants with the other Parties; (b) Each will fully comply with the NPDES permit condi- tions applicable to its Individual Program and its identi- fied portion of the General Program; (c) Each will select a representative and an alternate to participate in Management Committee meetings and other required meetings of the PARTIES; (d) Each will fund and implement its own Individual Program, and will fund and implement its share of the General Program. The District intends to provide funding to support new and expanded activities required by the General and Individual Programs for Cities located in District zones with Benefit Assessment Programs. Such funding will be provided to the extent that it is available and with the concurrence of the applicable City if it results in deferring flood control projects. (e) Each will provide agreed upon reports (certified under penalty of perjury) to the District on compliance with applicable provisions of the NPDES permit and program implementation. 4. A proper accounting of funds and reports of all receipts and disbursements shall be made, including funds disbursed to individual parties for implementation of permit programs. Upon completion of the purposes of this Agreement, any surplus money on hand shall be returned in proportion to the contributions made. In the event a Party terminates this Agreement, any unexpended portion of its share of cost funds shall be returned to it. 5. By agreement of the PARTIES, budget allocations for the General Program shall be made according to a formula which for the municipalities allocates proportional shares based on a 50 percent weight given to the area and a 50 percent weight given to the population within each municipalities' jurisdiction (excluding open water and wetland areas of San Francisco Bay). The attached Exhibit B provides a copy of the formulas which are used to allocate costs. Each Parties' share of the General Program's costs for fiscal year 1991/92 will be according to the percentages provided in Exhibit A. Cost shares will be recalculated based on updated information on population and area using the formulas in Exhibit B for fiscal year 1992/93 and at appropriate future intervals as specified in the bylaws. The budget allocation for the Individual Programs shall be made directly by the individual responsible parties. 6. This Agreement shall have a term of six (6) years from the first day of April 1991, subject to automatic renewal for a five (5) year period in the absence of objection thereto made in writing by any Party 90 days in advance of the renewal date. The participation of any Party to this Agreement may be terminated by a two-thirds affirmative vote of all allocated votes in any year in which the funds necessary for its continued involvement are not appropriated by its legislative body. 7. The PARTIES shall retain the ability to individually (or collectively) request permit modifications and initiate permit appeals for permit provisions to the extent that a provision affects an individual party or group of PARTIES. 8. This agreement may be amended from time to time by written agreement of the Parties' governing bodies representing two-thirds or more of all allocated votes as shown in Exhibit A. 9. ParticiPation in this Agreement may be terminated by any Party for any reason after the Party complies with all of the condi- tions of termination. The conditions of termination include the following: the Party shall notify all of the other Parties to the Agreement 90 days prior to its termination in the Agreement, the Party shall obtain its own NPDES permit for urban runoff, and the Party shall have its name deleted as a co-permittee of the Parties' NPDES permit through an amendment of the Parties' NPDES permit. Any expenses associated with terminating the Agreement including but not limited to filing for and obtaining the individual NPDES permit and the amendment of the Parties' NPDES permit will be solely the responsibility of the Party terminating its participation in the Agreement. 10. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code 895.4, each Party ("indemnitor") shall, to the extent permitted by law, defend, indemnify and save harmless every other Party, and its officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description resulting from indemnitor's performance of this Agreement, excluding any injuries, death, damage or liability resulting from the negligence or willful misconduct of the other Parties or their officers or employees. EXHIBIT A ALAMEDA COUNTY URBAN RUNOFF CLEAN WATER PROGRAM MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Voting and General Program Cost Share Percentages · Alameda 4.96 Alameda County 9.28 · Alameda County Flood Control 0.00 and Water Conservation District · Zone 7 of Alameda County Flood Control 0.00 and Water Conservation District · Albany 0.80 · Berkeley 6.22 · Dublin 2.34 Emeryville 0.40 · Fremont 17.04 · Hayward 11.52 · Livermore 5.40 Newark 3.04 · Oakland 23.80 · Piedmont 0.76 Pleasanton 4.46 San Leandro 4.84 · Union City 5.14 Total 100.00 ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a local public agency of the State of California, and COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, a subdivision of the State of California APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: County Counsel Chairperson, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: William Merhwein, Clerk The Board of Supervisors of the County of Alameda State of California ZONE 7 OF ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, a local public agency APPROVED AS TO FORM: of the State of California By: Attorney Chairman, Board of Directors ATTEST: Secretary, Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation of the State of California By: city Attorney Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF ALBANY, a municipal APPROVED AS TO FORM: corporation of the State of California By: City Attorney MaYor ATTEST: CITY OF BERKELEY, a APPROVED AS TO FORM: municipal corporation of the State of California By: city Attorney City Manager ATTEST: CITY OF DUBLIN, a municipal APPROVED AS TO FORM: corporation of the State of California By: City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF EMERYVILLE, a municipal APPROVED AS TO FORM: corporation of the State of California By: city Attorney Title: ATTEST'. CITY OF FREMONT, a municipal APPROVED AS TO FORM: corporation of the State of California By: city Attorney Title: ATTEST: CITY OF HAYWARD, a municipal APPROVED AS TO FORM: corporation of the State of California By: City Attorney Title: ATTEST: CITY OF LIVERMORE, a municipal APPROVED AS TO FORM: corporation of the State of California By: City Attorney City Manager ATTEST: CITY OF NEWARK, a municipal APPROVED AS TO FORM: corporation of the State of California By: city Attorney Title: ATTEST: CITY OF OAKLAND, a municipal APPROVED AS TO FORM: corporation of the State of California By: City Attorney Title: ATTEST: CITY OF PIEDMONT, a municipal APPROVED AS TO FORM: corporation of the State of California By: city Attorney Title: ATTEST: CITY OF PLEASANTON, a APPROVED AS TO FORM: municipal corporation of the State of California 'By: City Attorney Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, a APPROVED AS TO FORM: municipal corporation of the State of California By: City Attorney Title: ATTEST: CITY OF UNION CITY, a APPROVED AS TO FORM: municipal corporation of the State of California By: city Attorney Title: ATTEST: -CITY OF DUBLIN MEMORANDUM Date: April 1, 1991 To: Lee Thompson, Public Works Director Rich Ambrose, City Manager From: Mehran Sepehri, Senior Civil Engineer Subject: Storm Water Management Plan for the Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program California Regional Water Quality Control Board's San Francisco Region (Regional Board) requires cities to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to dis- charge its storm water into streams which lead to San Francisco Bay. As part of the NPDES permit, the City must implement a Storm Water Management Plan. This plan was prepared to fulfill the permit application requirements of the Regional Board and meet the intent of the Federal storm water regulations. The main objective of the plan is to protect the quality of water and life in the San Francisco Bay and tributary streams in Alameda County from potential adverse effects of storm water pollution. The objectives of these components can be described briefly as follows: a) Public Information and Participation: This component is proposed to educate the public to better understand and participate in the control of urban runoff pollution and to solicit support for the program. Some examples of Public Information and Participation are: 1. Urban Runoff kick-off event. 2. Fact sheet and brochure. 3. Slide show. 4. Urban Runoff Information telephone number. 5. Telephone survey. 6. Public workshops or meetings. 7. Media campaign. 8. Installation of program logo by students on storm drain inlets. These items will be undertaken as both General and Individual program activities. b) Municipal Government Activities: This component is proposed to improve activities performed by municipal government agencies and/or promote adoption of new practices to reduce the amount of pollutants entering the municipal storm drain system. Some examples of Municipal Government Activities are: Report on Storm Water ~anagement Plan April 1, 1991 Page 2 1. Household hazardous waste collection programs. 2. Collection or recycling program for non-hazardous material. 3. Litter pickup and control. 4. Erosion control on undeveloped lands. 5. Street sweeping. 6. Maintenance of storm drain inlets, catch basins, and storm drain lines and channels. c) New Development and Construction SiteControls: This component is proposed to control storm water pollution origi- nating from new development and significant redevelopment, both during and after construction. Some examples of New Development and Construction Site Controls are: 1. Site planning procedures which consider potential water quality impacts. 2. Detailed procedures for inspecting sites and enforcing control measures which address the nature of the construction activity, topography, characteristics of soils, and receiving water quality. 3. Structural (such as hay bales or sandbags to trap sediment and pollutants) and non-structural (such as spills prevention) practices. 4. Educational and training measures for construction site operators. d) Illicit Discharge Identification or Elimination: This component is proposed to eliminate all non-storm water discharges, including illicit connections and illegal dumping into the municipal storm drain system. Some examples of Illicit Discharge Identification and Elimination are: 1. A program to enforce ordinances to prevent illicit discharges. 2. Ongoing field screening activities. 3. Investigations of those portions of the storm drain system that have a reasonable potential of containing illicit discharges. 4. Procedures to prevent, contain, and respond to spills that may discharge into the storm drains. 5. A program to promote public reporting of illicit discharges. 6. Public education program to facilitate the proper management and disposal of used oil and toxic materials. 7. A program to limit infiltration from sanitary sewers to storm drains. Report on Storm Water Management Plan April 1, 1991 Page 3 e) Industrial Dischargers Identification and Runoff Control: This component is proposed to identify industrial discharges in Alameda County, ensure that the industries are discharging only storm water to the municipal storm drain system, and help industries learn how they can reduce pollutants in their storm water runoff and comply with state and local requirements. It is expected that the person who conducts the field inspections for the Illicit Discharge Identification and Elimination Program Component will conduct the industrial site inspections as necessary. (The City's cost for the Individual Program activities for this component is included in components (c) and (d) .) f) Monitoring: This component is proposed to conduct monitoring which will augment existing monitoring results on hydrologic and water quality conditions in Alameda County creeks, help identify sources of storm water pollution, evaluate effectiveness of controls proposed by the other program com- ponents, and evaluate effectiveness of the overall program on improving water quality. (No Individual Program activities are included in this component.) g) Storm Water Treatment: This component is proposed to retrofit selected existing storm water facilities to enhance their ability to remove contaminants from storm water or construct new facilities to treat storm water. Additionally, the program component will identify new or improved ways to operate and maintain existing storm water facilities to enhance removal of pollutants. Storm Water Management Program activities can be divided into two categorieS: those which are of benefit to all participants (termed General Program Activities) such as media advertising, etc., and those which are the responsibility of individual participants (cities, counties, etc.) and which provide indi- vidual benefits (termed Individual Program Activities) such as inspection, plan checking, etc. The County and consultants recommend that the City hire two full-time employees to work on the NPDES permit and storm water management plan. At this time, Staff feels that the allocation of 1/2 person to perform duties on storm management plan requirements will be required. Plan checking for the storm water management plan can be handled by the normal process. However, the storm water management plan requires a full-time Report on Storm Water Management Plan April 1, 1991 Page 4 employee, as the employee must receive intense training to perform the duties assigned. Part time employees tend to end their employment in favor of full time employment, in which case, the City coUld lose an employee with training which would be difficult to replace. A full-time employee could be hired to perform storm water management plan duties half the time and perform other duties the other half of the time. The permit and storm water management plan (which is part of the permit), will cost the City approximately $144,000 for the first year, based on the City's estimate to perform the consultant's recommendations, including the cost of additional staff. For FY 1991-92, the cost for General Program Activities will be ~approximately $77,000, and the City of Dublin Individual Program Activities will be approximately $67,000 over and above the program Dublin already has. Seven cities and Alameda County have already created an assessment district to fund this program. Some other cities are in the process of creating a storm water utility fee or assessment districts. For example, the City of Palo Alto has developed a Storm Water Utility Fee which could be used by the City of Dublin with some adjustments. The City of Palo Alto created an "Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU)" based on single- family and duplex units considered to have an average impervious area of 2,500 sq. ft. All other properties (such as commercial, industrial, multi-family, etc.) will have ERU's computed to the nearest.l/10 ERU using the following formula: No. of ERU's = Impervious Area (sq. ft). 2,500 sq. ft. No developed parcel shall have an ERU less than one (1.0). "Impervious Area" means any~part of any developed parcel of land that has been modified by the action of persons to reduce the land's natural ability to absorb and hold rainfall. The City of Dublin could use the area of total lot minus the area of unimproved open space, which could be found by looking at aerial maps and/or any other available plans. The total amount of funds needed for storm water management programs will be divided by the total amount of ERU's in the city to find the unit price of the ERU. The unit price will be multiplied by the number of ERU's in each lot. At this time, the approximate cost for each ERU in the city of Dublin would be about $20 per year, based on Staff's estimate of the costs. ' ' CITY OF DUBLiN ~ · MEMORANDUM DATE: April 11, 1991 TO: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director FROM: Mehran Sepehri, Sr. Civil Engineer /~ .~, SUBJECT: Urban Runoff Clean Water Management Program (URCWMP) Consultant Justification for Hiring Additional Staff The URCWMP consultant informed n~ that Santa Clara County has been impler~enting the program for approximately six months. However, they are only doing a portion of it, including Public Information/Participation and the education part of New Development and Construction Site. The cities in Santa Clara County which are comparable to the size of Dublin are using almost a full-time person (5/6 of full-tin~) on these programs mentioned above. Furthermore, the consultant estimated additional staffing would be needed for inspection, planchecking, investigation, etc. Based on these reasons, the consultant reconm~nded hiring two full-time staf fmembers. ~/mb Table 7-1. Staffing Recommendations for Improving Programs to Control Urban Runoff Pollution Resulting From New Development and Significant Redevelopment Name Plan and Permit Review Inspection Current Needed Current Needed Alameda not known 1 PT not known 1 PT County of Alameda not known 1 FT 'not known 1 FI' Albany not known 1 PT 1 Chief Inspector 1 PT Berkeley not known 1 PT 10 buildin _g/hbum~"ng: ~-. . 0 5 FT, 2 ~ engm,~rmg Dublin+ not known 1 FI' 3 Fl', 2 pT building &"~c0nstruction 1 FT * Emeryville not known 1 PT .ufik-r3~6wn 1 PT Fremont+ not known 1 FT ,t(~...,,.,:~%FT,: ~"~nd q~( PT public works 1 FI'* Hayward+ not known 1 FT 8 engxne~ohg & 1 FT * Livermore not known 1 FT:~,, '% ? ~5-~building & 8 public wor's 0 Newark+ not known 1 FI' X.~k ~;, 2 FY building & 1 FT, 1 FT * X x' 1 PT public works Oakland not knowh / ' .< 1 PT grading 1 FY Piedmom not kn~m Q 1 PT'~' 3 inspectors 0 Pleasanton+ ,.:? ..jlot"kn0wn FY 7 FY & 2 PT public works 1 FY * San Leandro+ ~_ ':..~ not knpwp~ 1 FY 5 FT site improvement 1 FI' * Union City+ '~'Okkn~own 1 FT 2 FT inspectors 1 FY * FY = Full time person PT= Part time person (1/2 time) * Although these cities currently have a large inspection staff, inspections are done currently only on a response basis, and there is potential for significant construction activity in the city. An additional staff person is recommended for routine inspection of ail new development. + It is recommended that these seven cities hire new staff during the first fiscal year of the Program, due to the potential for new development. 7.11 C :\Wp~ LAME DAKS F_.,CT7 .TB L PROPOSED WORK PROGRAM - NPDES PERMIT COST ESTIMATE I. Public Information A. Program Awareness 1) Urban Runoff Representative Hire 1/2 person (included for this & other at bottom program work of page) 2) Establish Informational Phone No. Use existing Public Works no. 3) Prepare Mailing List Use existing personnel & existing City- wide list. B. Public Awareness 1) Distribute informational Material Include w/ newsletter 2) Educational Presentations Include w/ 1/2 person 3) Develop Newsletter & Other Include w/ $ 5,000 Materials newsletter & calendar; $.25/brochure x 10,000 x 2/yr. 4) Evaluate Program (reports) Include w/ 1/2 person $ 5,000 II. 1/2 Staff Member for Inspections, Reports, $ 32,000 and Administration WORK PROGRAM, PAGE 2 III. Miscellaneous Activities A. Labeling catch basins, Volunteer $ 500 Materials: paint & stencils workers B. Increase inspection and cleaning $ 4,700 of catch basins by one time. C. Consulting help with brochures & $ 5,000 training work. D. Miscellaneous part-time and/or $ 20,000 other Consultant time support. $ ~o,2oo Say $ 30,000 GRAND TOTAL: $ 67,000 The following are already being done: 1) Litter pickup 2) Street sweeping twice monthly for residential areas and weekly for commercial areas. 3) Plan check and inspection of erosion control. 4) Hazardous waste collection program. 5) Map storm drains and outfalls. 6) Produce Citywide newsletters.