HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 8.5 Municipal Regional Permit
C~lrY CllERK
F~ ~e # [I][Q][Q][Q}{~[(2]
I 0 0 0 - 2.0
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCil MEET~NG DATE February 5,2008
SUBJECT
A TT ACHMENTS
RECOMMENDATION 4\P'"
~~
FINANCiAL STATEMENT
Update on MumcIpal RegIOnal PermIt for Stormwater and RevIew
of Comment Letter to the San FrancIsco Bay RegIOnal Water QualIty
Control Board
Report Prepared by Mark Lander, CIty Engmeer
2
EstImate of Annual PermIt Costs for City of DublIn and
Companson to EXIstmg PermIt Costs
Draft letter to the San FrancIsco Bay RegIOnal Water QualIty
Control Board
I
2
Accept the report, and
Authonze the Mayor to sign the letter to the San FranCISCO
Bay RegIOnal Water QualIty Control Board outlImng the
CIty'S concerns WIth the Permit and requestmg that the
RegIOnal Board's staff reVIse the PermIt to address these
concerns
Once adopted, the MUnIcIpal RegIOnal PermIt will reqUIre that
mumcIpalItIes perform addItIOnal admmIstratIve, operatIOnal, and
mamtenance tasks assocIated wIth stormwater qualIty, as well as
complete extensIve capItal Improvements to eXIstIng storm water
systems Staff estImates annual costs over the five-year lIfe of the
PermIt at $925,000, an Increase of $753,000 over eXIstIng annual
costs of $172,000 Staff has analyzed the proposed new PermIt
reqUIrements and of the proposed Increase approXImately $364,000
to $444,000 of those proposed costs there IS questIOnable or
margInal benefit In terms of cost, staff tIme, or other resources If
those proposed reqUIrements where concerns have been raIsed were
all elImInated there would stIll be an Increase from the current cost
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPY 'I 0 JIm ScanlIn, Alameda County Clean Water Program
Page 1 of 12
G INPDESlAfRP ^PDES PemllllAgsl MRP 2 05 08 doc
]I'JrlEM NO
8.5
{tj;-
of the City's program of $172,000 annually (excludIng street
sweepIng and storm dram Inlet cleanIng) to $309,000 to $389,000
annually
There IS currently no fundIng source for these mcreased costs These
addItIve costs may result m the reductIon of other services wruch the
City proVIdes
The draft letter from the Mayor to the RegIOnal Board requests that a
number of tasks of margmal or questIOnable benefit to water qualIty
Improvement be removed from the PermIt, and that the time frame
for other tasks be lengthened These reVISIOns would reduce the
annual cost of PermIt complIance for mUnICipalitIes
DESCRIPTION
Background
The City of DublIn operates a mumclpal stormwater system, WhICh IS covered under a PermIt from the
San FranCISco Bay Regional Water QualIty Control Board The PermIt governs mumcIpal activities
dIrectly related to draInage operatIons and mamtenance, as well as other CIty actiVItIes such as land
development and constructIon that could Impact water qualIty
The Federal Clean Water Act of 1972 focused on water qualIty by addreSSIng pomt sources of pollutIon,
such as sewer system outfalls and mdustrIal plants The Act was amended m 1987 to mclude nonpomt
sources of pollutIOn, pnmarIly urban storm runoff Enforcement of the Clean Water Act wItrun CalIfornIa
was delegated by the US EnVironmental ProtectIOn Agency to the State Water Resources Control Board
and the eIght Regional Water QualIty Control Boards Alameda County falls under the JunsdIctIon of the
San FranCISco Bay Regional Water QualIty Control Board (RegIOnal Board)
The fourteen mcorporated CItIes m Alameda County, along WIth the County of Alameda, the Alameda
County Flood Control DIstnct, and the Zone 7 Water Agency, have formed the Alameda County Clean
Water Program (ACCWP) to comply WIth Federal and State water qualIty reqUIrements The RegIOnal
Board has Issued a senes of five-year PermIts to the ACCWP The current PermIt WIll expire In 2008
The RegIOnal Board has determmed that, m lIeu of a senes of countYWide PermIts for the next five-year
penod, a SIngle MUnICIpal Regional Permit (MRP) WIll be Issued for San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda,
Contra Costa, and portIOns of Solano CountIes The RegIOnal Board has also expanded the speCIfic water
qualIty Issues to be Included under the MRP The new PermIt reqUIrements WIll result In sIgmficantly
greater effort and fundmg on the part of mUnICIpalItIes m order to comply WIth the PermIt
Current and Proposed Permit Compansons
The current PermIt reqUIres actIVIties by the ACCWP and mdlvIdual CIties m the categorIes of mumcIpal
maIntenance, new development, illICIt dIscharge control, busmess Inspections, publIc outreach and
educatIOn, mOnItorIng, and annual reportIng The proposed Permit expands the reqUIrements In each of
Page 2 of 12
these categones and adds a number of new categones A companson of the current and proposed PermIts
IS as follows, with the revIsed and new categones shown m bold type
ActiVIty Current PermIt Proposed PermIt
MUnIcIpal 1) Street sweepmg 1) Street sweepIng
Mamtenance 2) Storm Inlet cleamng 2) Storm Inlet cleanmg
3) Integrated Pest 3) Integrated Pest Management
Management (Reduced (Reduced PesticIde Use)
PestIcIde Use) 4) ReqUired parkmg restnctlons on street sweepmg days
(Postmg of residential streets m Dublin to restnct
parkmg on sweepmg days would require approximately
5,000 signs, at an mstallatlOn cost of $500,000, or an
average annual cost of $100,000 for the duration of the
five-year permit)
5) Increased reportmg
New 1) InstallatIOn of 1) InstallatIon of stormwater treatment measures
Development stormwater treatment 2) ErOSion control and pollutIOn control dunng constructIon
measures 3) OngoIng momtonng and mamtenance of stormwater
2) ErOSIOn control and measures
pollutIon control dunng 4) Stormwater treatment for new development projects
constructIOn With over 10,000 sf of ImpervIOUS surface (drops to 5,000
3) Ongomg momtonng sf m two years)
and mamtenance of (Example ReconstructIOn of the former Dublin Honda
stormwater measures sales buIldmg to house the Custom Fireplace
4) Stormwater development would reqUire mstallatIon of an
treatment for new underground storm runoff filter manhole, costmg
development projects $30,000)
With over 1 acre of 5) Stormwater treatment for public capital projects With
ImpervIOUS surface over 10,000 sf of ImpervIOUS surface (drops to 5,000 sf m
(Example The two years)
PosItano development (Example ReconstructIon of the Shannon Center on the
In Eastern DublIn eXlstmg buddmg footpnnt required mstallatlOn of
Includes four vegetated vegetated swales to filter roof and site runoff)
water qualIty ponds to 6) Stormwater treatment for street reconstructIOn
capture trash and filter projects replacmg over 10,000 sf of ImpervIOUS surface
other pollutants m (drops to 5,000 sf m two years)
storm fUfloff from the (Example The proposed reconstructIOn of the San
proJ ect Ramon Road pedestrIan/ bicycle trail to address
pavement and acceSSibility problems would be reqUired
to add structural or vegetatIOn treatment)
7) SpeCific site deSign reqUirements for new development
(as opposed to requirements for addressmg water quality
Impacts Improvements would be rote rather than
targeted to a speCific source)
8) Increased record keepm2: and reportm2
Page 3 of 12
ACtiVIty Current Permit Proposed PermIt
IllICit 1) SpIll 1) SpIll response/cleanup
Discharge response/cleanup 2) IdentIficatIOn and correctIOn of pollutant source
Control 2) IdentIficatIOn and connectIons to storm drams
correction of pollutant 3) Development of a JFormal Emergency R.esponse Plan
source connectIons to (ER.P) for spills or discharges
storm drams 4) lincreased record keepmg and reportmg
Busmess 1) Ongomg mspectIOn 1) Ongomg mspectlOn of busmesses for potentIal water
InspectIOns of bus messes for qualIty Impacts
potentIal water qualIty 2) Development of a JFormal Emergency Response Plan
Impacts (ERP) for spIlls or discharges
3) Increased record keepmg and reportmg
Public 1) Sponsonng local 1) Sponsonng local events that mcrease publIc awareness of
Outreach and events that mcrease water qualIty Issues (Day on the Glen, Dublm Pnde Week,
EducatIOn publIc awareness of creek cleanups)
water qualIty Issues 2) PartICipatIon m regIonal education or advertIsmg program
(Day on the Glen, 3) Increased mmlmum number of annual events per year
Dublm Pnde Week, (JI)ublIn IOcreases from 4 events to 6 events, or 50%
creek cleanups) 4) ReportlOg requirements for measurmg effectiveness of
2) PartICIpatIOn m programs (mcludmg behaVIOr changes and changes m
regIOnal educatIOn or awareness)
advertlSlng program 5) ReqUired Nonpomt Education for MUDlclpal OfficIals
(NEMO)
6) Increased record keepmg and reportmg
MOnItonng 1) Fmanclal 1) FmancIal contnbutlOn to San FranCISCO Estuary InstItute
contnbutIOn to San RegIOnal Momtonng Plan
FranCISCO Estuary 2) Development of long-term momtormg sites at speCific
InstItute RegIOnal locations (one m Alameda County)
MomtorIng Plan 3) Annual momtonng of selected local creeks (two per
year per county)
4) Testmg of water quality at flood control pump
stations (eleven 10 Alameda County) and ongolOg
momtonng of selected pump stations
5) Testmg for pollutants of concern 10 selected
watersheds (two m Alameda County)
6) Preparation of annual momtormg report to R.eglOnal
Board, as well as a finalmtegrated regIOnal report m
2012
Page 4 of 12
ACtIVIty Current PermIt Proposed PermIt
Annual 1) Annual Report to 1) Annual Report to RegIOnal Board documentmg
Reportmg Regional Board complIance wIth PermIt
documentmg 2) Increased requirements for annual reportmg (new
complIance wIth PermIt reportmg form IS 124 pages long, tWice the length of the
current form)
PestIcIdes N/A 1) PartiCipatIOn m regulatory process for pesticides and
assumptIOn of responsibilities for development and
enforcement of regulatIOns currently handled by federal
and State agencies
2) .!Public outreach and educatIOn for pest control and
landscapmg contractors, and documentatIOn of
behavIOral changes
3) New reportmg reqUIrements
Trash N/A 1) IdentificatIOn of areas wlthm mUDlclpalIty's
Assessment jUrIsdiction (mlDlmum 10% of junsdlctlOn) that are the
and Abatement highest generators of trash
2) Jl)evelopment of enhanced trash control programs such
as mcreased street sweepmg, curb parkmg restrIctIOns,
additional storm mlet mspectIon and c1eanmg, additional
trash receptacles, mcreased litter pickup, and public
outreach for half of targeted area (5% of jUrIsdiction)
3) InstallatIOn of full-trash capture devices such as storm
runoff filter manholes at storm dram outfalls or trash
filter screens at mlets for the other half of the targeted
area (5% of jUrIsdictIOn)
(The City of Dublin's targeted area IS approximately 500
acres Treatmg half or 250 acres With structural controls
IS estimated at $2,000,000 for mstallatIon of filter
manholes at approximately 20 locations)
3) Measures shall be m place by .July 1, 2012 (four years
from estimated date of Permit Issuance)
4) Ongomg momtonng and assessment of trash efforts
5) Jl)evelopment of a long-term trash management plan
resultmg m ZERO Impacts to benefiCIal uses Plan to be
complete by 2012 - Implemented by 2023
(ThiS language was taken verbatim from the permit The
performance goals are broad and vague Compliance
with "zero" Impacts could be prohibitively expensIVe
and/or could expose the City to be Cited for non-
compliance With the permit)
6) New reportmg reqUirements
Page 5 of 12
ACtIVIty
Current PermIt
Proposed PermIt
Pollutants of
Concern
N/A
1) AdditIOnal testmg, mODltonng, and studies to
determme sources and deposits of speCific pollutants
mcludmg mercury, copper, polychlormated byphenyls
(PCB's), polybrommated dlphenyl ethers (PBDE's), and
seleDlum
2) Development of enhanced mercury pollutIOn control
practices for mUDlclpal mamtenance activities
3) Development of 10 pilot programs each for removal of
mercury and PCB's m stormwater systems
4) Development of pilot programs for enhanced copper
removal for mUDlclpal mamtenance activIties
5) .Develop plan for expansIOn of pilot programs after
2012
6) Divert low-weather storm flows from five eXlstmg
stormwater pump stations to wastewater treatment
plants (five diverSIOns each for mercury and PCB's)
7) Develop a mercury and PCB health rIsk reductIOn
program for fish consumed from San FranCISco Bay
8) Identify PCB's on pnvate property as part of ongomg
clean water busmess mspectIons, and coordmatlOn with
State/ Federal regulatory agencies to faCIlitate removal of
PCB's
9) AdoptIOn of an ordmance prohlbltmg washmg of
buIldmgs with copper architectural features
10) New reportmg reqUirements
Current and Proposed Permit Costs
A cost companson has been prepared (Attachment 2) for the CIty of DublIn to comply with the
reqUirements of the new PermIt m companson to the costs of the eXisting PermIt Total costs are based on
a combmatlOn of actiVItIes performed by the CIty of DublIn and actiVIties performed by the ACCWP, for
whIch the City pays a proportIOnate share of the cost
The City IS currently spendmg $171,647 per year m PermIt complIance (thIS does not mclude costs for
street sweepmg or storm mlet cleamng, as the City would lIkely perform these actiVItIes anyway m the
absence ofa PermIt) EXIstmg costs are for staff tIme ($123,741), ACCWP Jomt program costs ($36,406),
mIscellaneous supplIes ($4,000) and the annual RegIOnal Board permit fee ($7,500) Staffing IS currently
085 full tIme employees (FTE), prOVIded by the PublIc Works AdmmIstratIve Analyst (0 60 FTE) and the
City Engmeer (0 25 FTE)
Under the new Permit, staff tIme devoted for the program would mcrease for both the AdmmIstratIve
Analyst (1 01 FTE) and the CIty EngIneer (0 66 FTE), or a total of 1 67 FTE Annual staffing costs would
mcrease by $142,393 per year Annual ACCWP program costs would mcrease by $13,402 and annual
supply costs would mcrease by $2,000 Vanous new pollutIon control measures reqUired under the permIt
would mcrease annual costs by $95,400 In addItIon, dunng the hfe of the five-year permIt, the City
Page 6 of 12
would be responsible for one-tIme capital costs for structural trash control Improvements ($2,000,000)
and InstallatIOn of parkIng restnctIon SIgnS on street sweepmg days parkmg ($500,000) ApportIOnment of
these costs over the five-year permIt results In annual costs of $400,000 for trash control and $100,000 for
slgmng Total annual cost Increases for the five-year permIt are $753,000, IncreasIng total annual costs to
$925,000
Staff has revIewed the Permit and belIeves that a number of the reqUIrements In the new PermIt proVIde
questIonable or margmal benefit m terms of cost, staff tIme, or other resources Removal or modIficatIon
of the follOWIng PermIt reqUIrements would result m savmgs to the CIty'S program of $364,000-444,000
per year, redUCIng the annual cost mcrease from $753,000 to $309,000-$389,000
Additional MODltormg ReqUirements The proposed PermIt reqUIres extenSIve new momtonng, testmg,
and reportmg efforts by PermIttees on local watersheds ThIS m spIte of the current efforts by the San
FranCISCO Bay Estuary InstItute (SFEI) to mamtam an ongomg RegIOnal Momtonng Program (RMP) for
San FranCISCO Bay, a program, which IS well-respected by the SCientIfic and environmental commumtIes
SFEI recently publIshed ItS 2007 report, based on hundreds of samples taken In Bay water and sedIment
over the last five years The report prOVIdes extenSIve data on location and sources of speCIfic pollutants
m the Bay, provIdmg a good base for development of cleanup efforts GIven thIS background knowledge,
the additional momtonng reqUIred under the MRP WIll not likely result m new data that wIll mfluence
pollutIOn reductIOn efforts ElImmatIon or reductIOn of the reqUIred new momtonng would not Impact
pollutIOn reductIon efforts and would allow avaIlable resources to be put Into actual water qualIty
Improvement efforts
If the Board were to reduce permIt reqUIrements m thIS area, the proJected annual cost mcrease of
$753,000 would be reduced by $9,000 per year
Increased Treatment ReqUirements for New Development The threshold for requmng mstallatIOn
and momtonng of water qualIty measures for new development has been reduced from 1 acre to 10,000 sf,
droppmg to 5,000 sf m two years Staff does not take Issue WIth the 10,000 sf threshold Staff does not
belIeve that reductIOn to the 5,000 sf threshold WIll capture new development wIth SIgnIficant pollutant
loadIngs For example, the recent renovatIon of the former Sleep Shop store on San Ramon Road, the
relocation of the CIty'S Eastern Dublm mspectIon trailers to the Fallon Sports Park, and the construction
of the Dublm Ranch Area G Neighborhood Square would not have reqUIred treatment at the 10,000 sf
threshold, but would reqUIre treatment at the 5,000 sf threshold None of these proJects results m
SIgnIficant new vehIcle tnps or other pollutant sources Reducmg the treatment threshold WIll result In
nomInal Improvement to water quality In terms of staff tIme needed for plan processing and reVIew,
reportmg, and ongomg momtonng ThIS wIll also result In installatIon of redundant SIte-specIfic water
quality measures, as the PermIt WIll likely result In a whole new set of commumty-wIde controls as well
The PermIt also reqUIres treatment of reconstructed pavement, even though ImpervIOUS surfaces are not
mcreased and no new actIvItIes are occumng that would generate addItIOnal pollutIOn
If the Board were to reduce permIt reqUIrements for reVIew and momtonng of new development, the
proJected annual cost Increase of$753,000 would be reduced by $7,000 per year
If the Board were to reduce permIt reqUIrements for addmg treatment controls to the CIty'S pavement
maintenance program for storm runoff treatment the proJected annual cost mcrease of $753,000 would be
reduced by $30,000 per year
Page 7 of 12
Development of AdditIOnal and Spill Response Procedures The PermIt reqUires development of a
formahzed Emergency Response Plan (ERP) for use wIth busmess InspectIons and spIll response, which
would detaIl how the CIty responds to these mCldents, as well as other processes, record keepmg, and
reportIng Included m the ERP are reqUirements to adopt, by ordInance, escalatIng penaltIes for
noncomplIance
The CIty of DublIn, dUrIng the 2006-07 FIscal Year, responded to a total of 21 spIlls or discharges The
maJonty of these dealt with 011 leaks from parked vehIcles, constructIon debns bemg dropped In a street,
or SImIlar problems The most extreme mCIdents Involved a sewage spIll due to a plugged sewer mam and
dumpIng of cookIng OIl by a restaurant mto a pnvate storm dram In addition, the City completed 23
bUSIness mspectlOns and Identified 7 Items requmng attentIon Each of these SItuations was eIther
corrected or In the process ofbemg corrected by the end of the fiscal year
In summary, the CIty of DublIn's current spIll response and busmess InspectIOn practices are effectIve,
and adoptIon of addItIOnal formal measures would proVIde no mcremental benefit to water qualIty
If the Board were to reduce permIt reqUirements m thIS area, the proJected annual cost mcrease of
$753,000 would be reduced by $13,000 per year
Increased Record Keepmg and Reportmg The PermIt reqUires addItIonal record keepIng and reportmg
m almost every category of actIVItIes The PermIt mcludes a new annual report form, SIgnIficantly longer
than the eXIstmg report format ThIS IS despIte lack of comment or response to annual reports submitted to
the board for the last several years, and comments by Board staff that they are unable to find the tIme to
reVIew eXIstmg reports
Record keepIng and reportIng utIlIzes staff tIme that could otherwise be used for actIVItIes that result In
actual water qualIty Improvements
If the Board were to reduce permIt reqUirements m tills area, the proJected annual cost Increase of
$753,000 would be reduced by $13,000 per year
Public Outreach The CIty of Dub 1m IS reqUired to complete addItIonal local publIc outreach events (SIX
events compared to four under the current PermIt) In past years, the CIty has met or exceeded thIS
mInImum reqUirement However, the Permit also reqUIres additional regIOn-level outreach and educatIon,
mcludmg measurement of effectIveness Staff questIons that practIcality of measunng Items such as
"awareness" or "behavIOral changes" Furthermore, glVen the major new efforts reqUired to deal wIth trash
and other pollutants of concern, staff suggests that thIS IS not the year to add addItIonal reqUired publIc
outreach work, and to Impose addItIonal record keepIng and reportmg reqUirements for thIS actIVIty
If the Board were to reduce permIt requlfements m tills area, the prOJected annual cost Increase of
$753,000 would be reduced by $8,000 per year
Copper The PermIt reqUires addItIonal copper-reductIon measures, mcludIng speCIfic changes to the
mumcIpal code regardmg washIng of bUlldmgs wIth copper archItectural features ThIS IS m spIte of the
San FranCISCO Estuary InstItutes' 2007 Regional MOnItonng Report IndIcatIng that copper levels In the
Bay are wIthm allowable health standard levels, and that copper was removed as a contnbutIng pollutant
to the Bay's status as an ImpaIred water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act Copper
Page 8 of 12
removal from storm runoff wIll contmue under eXIstmg PermIttee actIvItIes, m fact, copper removal may
be enhanced as a result of other reqUIred actIvIties for mercury, PCB's, etc
The PermIt reqUIres contmued partIcIpatIOn by PermIttees m the Brake Pad Partnersrup, which IS
developmg means of reducmg copper content m brake pads This IS a current cost and may achIeve
measurable statewIde benefits However, the PermIt reqUIres copper-specIfic actIvIties along WIth speCific
record keepmg and reportmg reqUIrements, none ofwruch contnbute to copper or other pollutant removal
or overall water qualIty Improvements Some of the requlfements (such as an ordmance prohIbItIng
washmg of bUIldmgs WIth extenor copper) would Impact a very lImIted source of copper and would be
ImpractIcal to enforce
If the Board were to reduce permIt reqUIrements m thIS area, the proJected annual cost mcrease of
$753,000 would be reduced by $24,000 per year (ThiS mcludes $21,800 for the actual copper reduction
measures and an additIOnal $2,200 m staff costs)
.DelegatIOn of State and Federal Duties to Local Government The PermIt reqUIres that local agenCIes
take on dutIes currently aSSIgned to State and Federal agenCIes WIth regards to abatement or momtonng of
certam pollutants of concern SpeCifically, the PermIt reqUIres that
1) Local agencies momtor and partICIpate m the regulatory process for pestICIdes and assume
responsIbIlItIes for development and enforcement of regulatIons currently handled by Federal and State
agenCIes ThIS actIVIty IS beyond the techmcal and legal scope of local government, and IS and should
contmue to be handled at the State and Federal level Further, If the RegIOnal Board (a State agency)
already has reason to belIeve that certam pestICIdes should not be used because of water qualIty Impacts, It
should take ItS' case directly to the State agenCIes responsible for pestICIde control and not rely on local
government to perform ItS' dutIes
2) Local agenCIes IdentIfy PCB's on pnvate property as part of ongomg clean water busmess
mspectlOns, and coordmatIon With State/ Federal regulatory agenCIes to faCIlItate removal of PCB's Local
agency actIOn should be lImIted to reportmg knowledge of potentIal PCB releases or contammatIon on
pnvate property to the appropnate State and Federal agenCIes, With abatement of the problem by those
agenCIes
3) Local agenCIes develop or partICipate m PCB and mercury health nsk reductIon program for fish
consumed from San FranCISCO Bay Agam, this IS an actIVIty that IS the responsIbIhty of County, State,
and Federal pubhc health agencies, and should not be delegated to the local level
The added cost of these actIVItIes IS undetermmed at thIS tIme, but wIll lIkely mvolve some level of
ACCWP actiVIty m whIch the CIty of Dublm WIll partICipate finanCIally In addItIOn, potentIal
mvolvement by the CIty m abatement costs for PCB contammatIOn at a sIte could be sIgnIficant
Trash ReductIOn As noted above, the draft PermIt contams a sectIOn on a trash reduction program
Permittees are reqUIred to develop a program to prevent trash from entenng stormwater systems and
watercourses, and/or to capture and remove trash from the stormwater systems before It enters
watercourses ReductIOn of trash IS of high pnonty to the RegIOnal Board and the State Water Resources
Control Board, and has already been made a reqUIrement of stormwater PermIts m Southern CalIforma
Trash reductIon IS a hIgh pnonty for a number of envIronmental groups who have garnered publIc and
polItical support for thIS Issue
Page 9 of 12
The CIty of DublIn encompasses approxImately 14 square miles Camp Parks and open space areas can be
removed from the area subJect to trash enhancement, reducmg the land area subJect to the trash reductIOn
reqUIrements of the Permit to 7 8 square mIles or 5,000 acres The target area for trash removal would be
10% of thIS, or 500 acres, of whIch half, or 250 acres, would reqUIre mstallatIon of structural trash capture
controls Staff has completed prelImmary estimates for tills work and Identified approximately twenty
storm dram outfalls m the Downtown area that could be retrofitted WIth structural controls at a cost of
$2 MIllIon, or $400,000 per year for the duratIon of the five-year PermIt ThIS IS approxImately 53% of
the total annual cost Increase of$753,000
The 10% trash target area would encompass most of the Downtown commercIal areas, the West DublIn
TranSIt Center, the East Dublm TransIt Center, VIllage Parkway, the CIVIC Center and DublIn Sports
Grounds, the pedestnan pathway connectmg VIllage Parkway WIth Dublm HIgh School and Valley HIgh
School, and Emerald Glen Park Staff has reViewed eXIstmg trash control measures m these areas and
belIeves that operatIOn and mamtenance actiVIties such as placmg addItIonal trash receptacles, enhanced
lItter pickup and mcreased busmess mspectIons could accomplIsh the trash reduction goals m all but
selected areas of the Downtown These remammg areas, totalIng approxImately 100-150 acres, would
receIve structural controls The 250 acre (5%) reqUIrement for structural retrofits would be reduced to
2-3%, With the other 350-400 acres (7-8%) of the targeted area bemg handled With eXIstmg or enhanced
non-structural methods
The MRP does not differentIate between trash ongmatmg on pnvate property vs the publIc nght-of-way,
on the baSIS that the trash ultImately ends up m the publIc storm dram system Although the CIty could
deal WIth thIS trash WIth structural controls m the storm dram system, the CIty could also show
complIance by addressmg pnvate property Issues through Its' ongomg busmess mspectIon program, code
enforcement, and land development review ThIS IS JustIficatIOn for reducmg the 5% structural control
reqUIrement to 2-3%
Staff would recommend that the PermIt reqUIrement of 5% structural retrofit by 2012 be modIfied to
reduce thIS to the 2-3% range, allowmg the use of non-structural controls to achIeve trash reductIOn wlthm
the 10% targeted area ThIS would allow PermIttees an opportumty to assess the effectiveness of these
methods and determme If addItIonal structural controls are warranted under the Long Term 15- Year Trash
Reduction Plan due m 2012
If the Board were to reduce permIt reqUIrements m thIS area, the projected annual cost mcrease of
$753,000 would be reduced by reducmg that structural retrofit reqUIrement from 5% to 2-3% would result
m a proportIonate reduction m capItal costs, reducmg the cost of PermIt complIance by $160-240,000 per
year
Parkmg RestrIctions The PermIt mcludes language that could potentially reqUIre that local streets be
posted for no parkmg on street sweepmg days Tills would reqUIre mstallatIon of approxImately 5,000
SIgnS at a cost of $1 00 each, or $500,000 over the five-year permits ($100,000 annually)
The CIty'S street sweepmg program currently prOVides for weekly sweepmg of maJor streets and tWlce-
monthly sweepmg of local streets Street sweepmg on local streets IS scheduled to occur the day after trash
pIckup, to allow cleanmg of any spIlled trash Response to reSidents' concerns regardmg unswept areas IS
handled by sendmg the sweeper out to the areas of concern Staff does not belIeve that parkmg restnctIons
on local streets would result m an mcrease m the volume of pollutants removed from the streets In
Page 10 of 12
addItIOn, parkmg restnctlons could result m parkmg shortages m some neighborhoods, and would reqUire
ongomg enforcement by the PolIce Department
Permit Review Process
The RegIOnal Board Issued an admmIstratIve draft of the PermIt III October 2006 Staff reviewed the draft
and responded WIth an eIght-page comment letter on November 6, 2006 Comments were also receIved
from ACCWP, vanous cItIes wlthm the Bay Area, other clean water programs, and the Bay Area Storm
Management Agency ASSOCiation (BASMAA) The RegIOnal Board Issued a subsequent administrative
draft m May 2007 Staff reviewed thiS versIOn of the draft and responded With a 15~page comment letter
on July t3, 2007 Comments were received from numerous other agencies as well
Followmg the receipt of comments on the second versIOn of the admInIstrative draft, RegIOnal Board staff
agreed to meet WIth representatives of ACCWP, BASMAA, and other clean water programs A senes of
meetmgs were held over Summer 2007, dunng whIch PermIttee staff outlmed specIfic concerns WIth the
Pemut and offered up specIfic changes to the PermIt that addressed PermIttee concerns Without
compromlsmg the mtegnty of the PermIt RegIOnal Board staff agreed to consider PermIttees' concerns
and suggestions III the final versIOn of the PermIt
The RegIOnal Board Issued a tentative order for the regIOnal Permit on December 4, 2007 The order
prOVIded for a deadlIne of February 1, 2008, for the submIttal ofwntten comments, WIth a publIc heanng ,
scheduled on February 13 The order mdlcated that the PermIt would be adopted III Spnng 2008
ReVIew by Staff of the tentatIve order shows that few of the Issues raIsed by Permittees III 2006 and 2007
were addressed In fact, the order contams SIgnIficantly more restnctlve reqUIrements than the preVIOUS
admInIstratIve draft WIth regards to trash reductIOn, development of pIlot programs for pollutants of
concern, and dIverSIOn of stormwater dry weather flows to wastewater treatment plants Further, the
annual reportmg forms (to be mcluded as part of the PermIt) were not mcluded m the December order and
were not receIved for review untIl December 21
The Board IS reqUIred by law to proVIde a mInImUm 3D-day review and comment penod pnor to the
public hcanng The Board has mdIcated that a 60-day reVIew and conunent penod IS bemg prOVided as a
good-faIth gesture It IS noted that the tentatIve order as released was substantially different than pnor
documents, and that the order as released was mcomplete Some matenal was not received untIl Just pnor
to Chnstmas, effectively preventmg reVIew untIl after January 1 As a result of a requcst by BASMAA,
the RegIOnal Board has agreed to reschedule the wntten comment deadlme from February 1 to February
29, and postpone the InitIal public heanng until March 11
In summary, except for the four-week postponement of the public heanng, the RegIOnal Board staff has
not been responSIve to Penmttee comments, and the PermIt has been a movmg target
Given the above, further mput from Permittee staff to RegIOnal Board staff IS not lIkely to be productive
CIty Staff has prepared a draft letter to the RegIOnal Board members from the Mayor, requestmg speCIfic
changes to the PermIt to address the CIty'S concerns SpeCIfic requests encompass the elImmatIOn of
exceSSIve and redundant momtonng, reductIon m thresholds for new development that rcsult m margmal
water qualIty benefits, excessive record keepmg, procedural changes, and reportmg, and mcreased publIc
outreach and educatIOn, as well as a request that capital Improvements reqUired m associatIon WIth trash
reductIOn be reduced or deferred
Page 11 of12
RecommendatIOn
It IS recommended that the CIty Council 1) accept the report, and 2) authorIze the Mayor to sign the letter
to the San FrancIsco Bay RegIOnal Water QualIty Control Board outlmmg the City's concerns With the
PermIt and requestmg that the Board's staff reVIse the Permit to address these concerns
Page 12 of 12
I ~ ~
2008 MUnicipal Regional Permit
30-Jan-08
Comparison to EXlstmg 2003 MUnicipal Permit
Total Cltv Costs EXlstmg Proposed Increase
Staff Costs
CItY Enolneer 0 25 FTE eXlstlnO 0 66 FTE new $ 60 455 $ 159 602 $ 99 147
$
Administrative Analyst I 060 FTE ex /1 01 FTE new $ 63 286 $ 106 532 $ 43 246
$ -
Subtotal Cltv Staff $ 123 741 $ 266 134 $ 142 393
$
Materials Supplies $ 4000 $ 6000 $ 2000
$
Trash Control Structural Measures ($2 000 000 In one-time
caOltal costs apportioned over the flve-vear permit) $ 400 000 $ 400 000
$
Street Sweeping Parking Restnctlons ($500 000 In one time
capital costs apportioned over the five-year permit) $ 100 000 $ 100 000
$
Additional Cost to Pavement ProQram for Runoff Treatment $ 30 000 $ 30 000
$
Mercury Reduction In Storm Runoff $ 21 800 $ 21 800
$
PCB Reduction In Storm Runoff $ 21 800 $ 21 800
$
Co Doer Reduction In Storm Runoff $ 21 800 $ 21 800
$
ACCWP Prooram Costs (218%)*** $ 36 406 $ 49 808 $ 13 402
$
Stormwater Permit Fee $7500 $7500 $
Total $171 647 $924 842 $ 753 195
*Program cost IS 2 18% of total program cost based on ACCWP Estimated Costs for FY09/10
Note EXisting local costs do not Include current level street sweeping storm Inlet cleaning or park
and public faCIlity litter control which are conSidered part of ongoing operation and maintenance costs
Page 1
ftlU-vl tr 8 5 ;2/5'(0<6 ~
ATTACHMENT 1
~051t5or-
0" ~~{P-
III ~o~ ~\\
~'" ~u~l~
\" ~.Ot~ III!,
\\"):~~.df?!1
,,~'V
J~ ~
CITY OF DUBLIN
'Celebrating 25 Years Of Cltyhood 1982-2007'
100 CIVIC Plaza Dublin CAhforrua 9.!J-=[)R
Web')lt'" http //www CI aubhn ca us
February 6, 2008
Mr John Muller
Chair
San FrancIsco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
1515 Clay Street Ste 1400
Oakland CA 94612
Subject Tentative Order for MUnicipal Regional Permit
Dear Mr Muller
The City of Dublin appreciates the opportunity to review the Tentative Order for the MUnicipal
Regional Permit (MRD) which was released for by the San FrancIsco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board on December 4, 2007
The City of Dublin recognizes the effort by Board staff Into the preparation of the new permit
which Includes aggressive measures to deal with pollutants of concern, rncludlng trash The
City of Dublin IS committed to performing ItS' share of the effort needed for continued
reduction of pollutants and Improvements to water quality within the Bay Area The City has
taken a progressive approach to addreSSing environmental quality Issues through ItS Green
BUilding Program for City facIlities, Green BUilding requirements for new development and
development of two transit centers at the West and East Dublin BART Stations The City has
dedicated the necessary resources to ensure that It remains In compliance with both the letter
and the Spirit of ItS current MUniCipal Storm Water Permit, and recently worked With both
Caltrans and the Regional Board In developing the first cooperative stormwater treatment
project under these agencies alternate treatment measures program
FollOWing detailed review of the permit we remain concerned that many requirements of the
permit Will result In questionable or marginal Improvements to actual water quality and may
In fact detract from local agencies ability to carry out eXisting or Improved local clean water
programs due to demands on funding, staff, and other resources SpeCifiC concerns are as
follows
AI en Code (8~o) City IV'nnage 83v 6b!Ju City C.ounCII 83::' 663::: ' ersnnneJ 83" 6605
:::1~anr0 '13... 66~( Public Wor'r ErolnpPtl (I OJ sr{( Lark ",0'"1'1'1 nl{ ;:,elvcP
olannlng/Cods t:: llorc men! 8J3 6&10 DUIIOIIlL ''lSpeClIOn uu: 662v t::1re;J 9V
A TT ACHMENT 2
Pnrlt.....u ..... it-' vc/:::( PtlDt
Mr John Muller
San FrancIsco Bay Regional Water Control Board
Tentative Order for Draft MUnicipal Regional Permit (December 4,2007 Release)
Page 2 of 7
2~~
1) Additional MOnitoring Requirements
The proposed permit requires extensive new mOnitoring, testing, and reporting efforts by local
agencies on local watersheds This In spite of the current efforts by the San FrancIsco Bay
Estuary Institute (SFEI) to maintain an ongoing Regional MOnitoring Program (RMP) for San
FrancIsco Bay, a program which IS well respected by the SCientific and environmental
commUnities SFEI recently published ItS 2007 report based on hundreds of samples taken
In bay water and sediment over the last five years The report provides tremendous InSight on
watershed-specific sources of pollutants In the bay and trends for Improvement or
degradation due to speCific pollutants Given this background knowledge, It IS questionable
that additional mOnitoring data Will Influence pollution reduction efforts that are required by
the permit regardless of the mOnitoring results Elimination or reduction of the required new
mOnltonng would not Impact pollution reduction efforts and would allow available resources to
be put Into actual water quality Improvement efforts
The added cost of new mOnitoring efforts to the City of Dublin IS estimated at over $9,000 per
year
2) Increased Treatment Requirements for New Development
The threshold for reqUiring Installation and mOnitoring of water quality measures for new
development has been reduced from 1 acre to 10,000 sf dropping to 5 000 sf In two years
The City of Dublin does not take Issue with the 10,000 sf threshold However, we do not
I
believe that reduction to the 5 000 sf threshold Will capture new development with significant
pollutant loadings, and that the result Will be nominal Improvement to water quality, Increased
staff time needed for plan processing and ongoing mOnitoring, and the installation of privately
maintained site-specific water quality measures that Will be redundant to publicly-maintained
community-wide controls
The permit also requires treatment of reconstructed pavement, even though Impervious
surfaces are not Increased and no new activities are occurrrng that would generate additional
pollution The added cost of this requirement Will dilute the limited funds already available for
pavement rehabilitation and further hinder local agencies ability to maintain their street
systems
The added cost for staff to review and mOnitor new development IS estimated at over $7,000
per year The cost added to the City s pavement maintenance program for storm runoff
treatment IS estimated at $30,000 per year
3) Development of Additional and Spill Response Procedures
The permit requires development of a formalized Emergency Response Plan (ERP) for use
With bUSiness Inspections and spill response among other processes, record keeping and
Mr John Muller
San FrancIsco Bay Regional Water Control Board
Tentative Order for Draft MUnicipal Regional Permit (December 4,2007 Release)
Page 3 of 7
4~~
reporting Included In the ERP are requirements to adopt, by ordinance, escalating penalties
for noncompliance
The City of Dublin, dUring the 2006-07 Fiscal Year, responded to a total of 21 spills or
discharges In addition, the City completed 23 business Inspections and Identified 7 Items
requiring attention Each of these situations was either corrected or In the process of being
corrected by the end of the fiscal year
In summary, the City of Dublin's current spill response and business Inspection practices are
effective, and adoption of additional formal measures would proVide no Incremental benefit to
water quality
The added cost of adopting additional business and spill response measures IS estimated at
$13 000 per year
4) Increased Record Keepmg and Reportmg
The permit requires additional record keeping and reporting In almost every category of
actiVities The permit Includes a new annual report form, Significantly longer than the eXisting
report format ThiS IS despite lack of comment or response to annual reports submitted to the
board for the last several years and comments by board staff that they are unable to find the
time to review eXisting reports
Record keeping and reporting utilizes staff time that could otherwise be used for actiVities that
result In actual water quality Improvements
The added cost of completing the annual report IS estimated at $13,000 per year
5) Public Outreach
The City of Dublin IS required to complete additional local public outreach events (SIX events
compared to four under the current permit) In past years, the City has met or exceeded thiS
minimum requirement However, the permit also requires additional region-level outreach and
education, including measurement of effectiveness We question the practicality of measuring
Items such as "awareness or "behavioral changes Furthermore, given the major new efforts
required to deal with trash and other pollutants of concern the City of Dublin suggests that
thiS IS not the year to add additional required public outreach work and to Impose additional
record keeping and reporting requirements for thiS activity
Added costs for public outreach are estimated at over $8 000 per year
6) Copper
The permit requires additional copper-reduction measures Including speCifiC changes to the
mUnicipal code regarding washing of bUildings with copper architectural features ThiS IS In
Mr John Muller
San FrancIsco Bay Regional Water Control Board
Tentative Order for Draft MUnicipal Regional Permit (December 4, 2007 Release)
Page 4 of 7
5:iZ>
spite of the San FrancIsco Estuary Institutes 2007 Regional MOnltonng Report Indicating that
copper levels In the Bay are below allowable health standard levels and that copper was
removed as a contnbutlng pollutant to the Bay s status as an Impaired water body under
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act Copper removal from storm runoff will continue under
eXisting local agency activIties In fact, copper removal may be enhanced as a result of other
reqUired activities for mercury, PCB s, etc
The permit reqUires continued participation by local agencies In the Brake Pad Partnership,
which IS developing means of redUCing copper content In brake pads ThiS IS a current cost
and may achieve measurable stateWIde benefits However, the permit reqUires copper-
specific actIVIties along with specific record keeping and reporting requirements, none of
which contnbute to copper or other pollutant removal or overall water quality Improvements
Some of the requirements (such as an ordinance prohibiting washing of bUildings With
extenor copper) would Impact a very limited source of copper and would be Impractical to
enforce
The added cost of copper reduction IS estimated at $24 000 per year
7) Trash Reduction
The permit requires that agencies develop an enhanced trash control program for at least
10% of the land Within their Junsdlctlon Half of the targeted area must be treated With
structural trash controls
The City of Dublin would need to proVide structural controls treating approximately 300 acres
In order to comply With thiS permit requirement The cost of Installing these structures IS
estimated at $2 Million, or $400,000 per year for the duration of the five-year permit
The City of Dublin s 10% trash target area would encompass most of the Downtown
commercial areas, the West Dublin TranSit Center, the East Dublin TranSit Center and both
local high schools The City s staff has reViewed eXisting trash control measures In these
areas and believes that operation and maintenance activities such as plaCing additional trash
receptacles and enhanced litter pickup could accomplish the trash reduction goals, and that
the 5% requirement for structural retrofits could be reduced to 2-3%
The City of Dublin requests that the permit requirement of 5% structural retrofit by 2012 be
modified to reduce thiS to the 2-3% range allOWing the use of non-structural controls to
achieve trash reduction Within the 10% targeted area ThiS would allow local agencies an
opportunity to assess the effectiveness of these methods and determine If additional
structural controls are warranted under the Long Term 15-Year Trash Reduction Plan due In
2012
RedUCing that structural retrofit requirement from 5% to 2-3% would reduce the added cost of
permit compliance by $200,000 per year
Mr John Muller
San FrancIsco Bay Regional Water Control Board
Tentative Order for Draft MUnicIpal Regional Permit (December 4,2007 Release)
Page 5 of 7
t> 1~
8) Delegation of State and Federal Duties to Local Government
The permit requires that local agencies take on duties currently assigned to State and
Federal agencies with regards to abatement or mOnitoring of certain pollutants of concern
Specifically, the permIt requires that
1) Local agencies mOnitor and participate In the regulatory process for pesticides and
assume responsibilities for development and enforcement of regulations currently handled by
Federal and State agencies This activity IS beyond the technical and legal scope of local
government, and IS and should continue to be handled at the State and Federal level
Further, If the Regional Board (a State agency) already has reason to believe that certain
pesticides should not be used because of water quality Impacts It should take ItS' case
directly to the State agencies responsible for pesticide control and not rely on local
government to perform ItS' duties
2) The permit requires that local agencies Identify PCB's on private property as part of
ongoing clean water business Inspections, and coordination with State/ Federal regulatory
agencies to facIlitate removal of PCB s Local agency action should be limited to reporting
knowledge of potentral PCB releases or contamination on private property to the appropriate
State and Federal agencies with abatement of the problem by those agencies
3) The permit requires that local agencies develop or participate In PCB and mercury
health risk reduction program for fish consumed from San FrancIsco Bay Again, this IS an
activIty that IS the responsibility of County, State and Federal public health agencies, and
should not be delegated to the local level
WhIle the cost for these additional duties IS Indeterminate at this time, we believe that the
delegation by the State to local government of dutIes that rightfully should be performed at
the State and Federal level should not occur without compensation to local government for
this additional mandated work
9) Parkmg Restrictions The Permit Includes language that could potentially require that
local streets be posted for no parking on street sweeping days ThIs would require installation
of approximately 5,000 sIgns at a cost of $100 each, or $500 000 over the five-year permits
($100 000 annually)
The City's street sweeping program currently provIdes for weekly sweeping of major streets
and twice-monthly sweeping of local streets Street sweeping on local streets IS scheduled to
occur the day after trash pickup, to allow cleaning of any spilled trash Response to residents
concerns regarding unswept areas IS handled by sending the sweeper out to the areas of
concern We do not believe that parking restrictions on local streets would result In an
Increase In the volume of pollutants removed from the streets
Mr John Muller
San FrancIsco Bay Regional Water Control Board
Tentative Order for Draft MUnicipal Regional Permit (December 4 2007 Release)
Page 6 of 7
'11S
The City of Dublin has completed an analYSIS of the fiscal and staffing Impacts of the new
permit The City of Dublin currently spends approximately $172,000 per year on activities
directly related to ItS water-quality program, including staff time, matenals, and the
contnbutlon to the Alameda County Clean Water Program ThiS amount does not Include
maintenance activities such as street sweeping, storm drain Inlet cleaning, and trash removal
from City parks, nor does It Include costs associated With review of land development which
are reimbursed by developers Based on new or enhanced activities requIred under the new
permit It IS estimated that the annual cost of clean water actiVities will Increase to $925,000,
an annual Increase of $753,000 or 430% Again, thiS cost does not Include likely
proportionate cost Increases In maintenance and development review
Modlfymg the permit to address the nine Items discussed above would reduce the Increased
annual costs to the City of Dublin by $364,000-$444 000, Without Significantly reducing the
effectiveness of water quality programs proVided by the CIty
We hope that thiS cost companson gives you some appreciation of the Impacts from the
current permit requirements to the City of Dublin and other mUnicipalities We concur that
water quality goals should not be dnven by cost However, please understand that local
agencies must work With a finite amount of funding and that, anytime any public agency
spends funds on any task, It must spend those funds m a manner that maXimizes the return
on those funds for the public Permit requIrements for reporting, mOnltonng, or "nice to have
Items that have no actual benefit to water quality Improvements do not serve the public and
should be eliminated
Please note that most of these Issues have been raised In prevIous letters from the City of
Dublin to Regional Board staff on November 30, 2006 and July 13, 2007 Copies of these
letters are attached
We appreciate your attention to these comments and look forward to a renewed dialogue
With the Board as we work through the remaining permit Issues Please contact JOnl Pattillo
Assistant City Manager at (925)-833-6650 for further diSCUSSion of these comments
Sincerely,
Janet Lockhart
Mayor
JUml
Attach
cc Shalom Ellahu San FrancIsco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
Mr John Muller
San FrancIsco Bay Regional Water Control Board
Tentative Order for Draft MUnicipal Regional Permit (December 4,2007 Release)
Page 7 of 7
William Peacock San FrancIsco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
Terry Young San FrancIsco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
Jim McGrath San FrancIsco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
Bruce Wolfe Executive Director Regional Board
Thomas Mumley, Assistant Executive DIrector Regional Board
Jim Scanlin Alameda County Clean Water Program
Richard Ambrose City Manager
JOn! Pattillo Assistant City Manager
Libby Silver City Attorney
Melissa Morton Public Works Director
Mark Lander City Engineer
Jerr Ram Commumty Development Director
G \NPDES\MRP NPDES Permll\MRP Comments to Board 2 06 08 doc
~~~