MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA November 16, 2005 Meeting

City of Antioch : Phil Hoffmeister, Vice-Chairperson/

Julie Haas-Wajdowicz City of Brentwood : Jeff Cowling/Eunejune Kim City of Clayton : Laura Hoffmeister/Jeremy Graves City of Concord : Jeff Roubal, Chairperson/Qamar Khan/

Bruce Good Town of Danville : Christine McCann/Michael Stella/

Steve Lake City of El Cerrito : Bruce King/Melanie Mintz City of Hercules : Erwin Blancaflor/Jeff Brown City of Lafayette : Donna Feehan/Ron Lefler City of Martinez : Tim Tucker/Alex Stroup Town of Moraga : Jill Mercurio/Frank Kennedy City of Oakley : Frank Kennedy/Jason Vogan City of Orinda : Cathy Terentieff/Janice Carey City of Pinole : Nancy Voisey City of Pittsburg : Ken Strelo/Laura Wright City of Pleasant Hill : Steve Wallace City of Richmond : Mary Phelps/Stephen Friday City of San Pablo : Karineh Samkian/Scott Christie City of San Ramon : Rod Wui/Maria Robinson City of Walnut Creek : Diana Walker/Scott Wikstrom Contra Costa County : Rich Lierly/Tonya Redfield Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District

: Greg Connaughton/Mitch Avalon

PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDAR NOW!!!

Next Management Committee Meeting

Wednesday, December 21, 2005 – 1:30 p.m. Conference Room “A”

255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, California

CONTRA COSTA CLEAN WATER PROGRAM Management Committee Agenda-

November 16, 2005 Meeting

AGENDA

Public Comments: Any member of the general public may address the Management Committee on a subject within their jurisdiction and not listed on the agenda. Remarks should not exceed three (3) minutes.

Presentation Items: A. Progress Report on Review of C.3 Projects and Lessons Learned

(Dan Cloak – Program Consultant/Tom Dalziel)

30 min.

B. Mapping Contra Costa HMP Exemptions (Dan Cloak – Program Consultant/ Tom Dalziel)

10 min.

C. Strategies for New Revenue for Stormwater Management (John Bliss – Shilts Consulting)

30 min.

Consent Calendar:

05 min.

(All matters listed under the CONSENT CALENDAR are considered to be routine and can be acted on by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a member of the Management Committee or a member of the public prior to the time the Management Committee votes on the motion to adopt.) A. October 10, 2005 C.3 Technical Work Group Meeting Summary (Dan Cloak –

Program Consultant, Tom Dalziel)

B. October 19, 2005 Management Committee Meeting Minutes (Michelle McCauley, Donald P. Freitas)

C. October 24, 2005 C.3 Planning & Permitting Work Group Meeting Summary (Dan Cloak – Program Consultant, Tom Dalziel)

D October 25, 2005 Watershed Assessment & Monitoring Committee Meeting Minutes (Chris Sommers – Program Consultant, Michelle McCauley)

E. October 26, 2005 Public Education & Industrial Outreach Committee Meeting Minutes (Panagraph – Program Consultant, Donald P. Freitas)

F. October 20, 2005 Municipal Maintenance Planning Work Group Meeting Minutes (Elisa Wilfong)

G. October 27, 2005 Commercial/Industrial Ad hoc Committee Meeting Minutes (Elisa Wilfong)

2

H. November 1, 2005 Administrative Committee Meeting Minutes (Michelle McCauley, Donald P. Freitas)

Action Items:

A. APPROVE the C.3 Planning & Permitting and Technical Work Groups’ Recommended Policy on the Use of Hydrodynamic Separators (Tom Dalziel)

15 min.

B. APPROVE the Collection of Impervious Surface Data for C.3 Compliance by Each Co-permittee (Donald P. Freitas)

15 min.

C. APPROVE the Administrative Committee’s Recommendation to Cancel the December 21, 2005 Management Committee Meeting (Donald P. Freitas)

05 min.

Staff Reports: A. Status of Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s Hydrograph Modification

Management Plan (Tom Dalziel)

20 min.

B. Personnel Update (Donald P. Freitas) 05 min.

C. Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) Update (Donald P. Freitas) 10 min.

D. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Meeting Schedule (Donald P. Freitas)

05 min.

Regional Board Staff Comments/Reports:

10 min.

A. San Francisco Bay RWQCB – Christine Boschen

B. Central Valley RWQCB – Christine Palisoc

Information Items:

05 min.

A. Article – Reinforced Grass Paving: http://www.pavingexpert.com/ grasspav.htm

Old/New Business:

Adjournment: 165 min. (4:15 p.m. target adjournment time)

DPF/TD:kh G:\GrpData\NPDES\Management Committee\Agenda\05 06\Draft MC Agenda Nov 05.doc

3

UPCOMING EVENTS and/or DEADLINES:

November 16, 2005

“Notice of Public Hearings” & “Notice of Filing a Draft Environmental Document,” San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board): Second of two hearings regarding proposed Basin Plan amendment, November 16th, 2005, 9:00 a.m., Elihu M. Harris State Building, First Floor Auditorium, 1515 Clay Street, Oakland, CA.

December 14, 2005 Special Meeting on the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP), San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Chambers, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

PROGRAM COMMITTEE MEETINGS: November 14, 2005 C.3 Planning & Permitting Work Group Meeting, 9:00 – 11 a.m., location TBD

November 14, 2005 C.3 Technical Work Group Meeting, 1:30 – 3:30 p.m., location TBD

November 22, 2005 Watershed Assessment & Monitoring Committee Meeting, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., 255 Glacier Drive,

Martinez, CA, Conference Room “B”

November 23, 2005 Public Education & Industrial Outreach Committee Meeting, 9:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “B”

November 23, 2005 New Development & Construction Controls Committee Meeting, 2:00 – 4:00 p.m., Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “A”

November 28, 2005 C.3 Planning & Permitting Work Group Meeting, 9:00 – 11 a.m., location TBD

November 28, 2005 C.3 Technical Work Group Meeting, 1:30 – 3:30 p.m., location TBD

December 6, 2005 Administrative Committee Meeting, 9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m., 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “B”

December 21, 2005 Management Committee Meeting, 1:30 – 5:00 p.m., 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA, Conference Room “A”

4

Date: November 16, 2005

To: Management Committee From: Tom Dalziel, Senior Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Dan Cloak, Program Consultant Dan Cloak Environmental Consulting Subject: Presentation Item A – Progress Report on Review of C.3 Projects

and Lessons Learned

Recommendation: Receive progress report on the Program’s assistance to municipal staff and land development professionals and the lessons learned along the way. Inform municipal staff involved in the review of C.3 projects of lessons learned. Consider incorporating or modifying internal practices or policies to address common issues and solutions, as appropriate. See related topic under Action Item “A.” Background: The Provision C.3 requirements became effective February 15, 2005. In preparation, each municipality adopted an updated Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance, based on a model provided by the Program, mandating implementation of the Provision C.3 requirements. The ordinances require development permit applications be accompanied by a Stormwater Control Plan that meets the criteria in the most recent version of the Program’s Stormwater C.3 Guidebook (Guidebook). The Guidebook includes step-by-step instructions to assist applicants to prepare Stormwater Control Plans. Each project’s Stormwater Control Plan documents –in a consistently organized, easy-to-check format – that the project has been planned and designed to comply with each of the C.3 provisions. The Program held four half-day workshops on C.3 implementation in November and December 2004. Two of the workshops, held in Antioch and Walnut Creek, were addressed to municipal staff. The other two workshops, also held in Antioch and Walnut Creek, were addressed to land development professionals.

The workshops consisted of a review of the contents of the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, presentation of examples, design exercises, and discussion. As a follow-up to the November/December 2004 workshops, the Program held a full-day workshop in Walnut Creek on June 8, 2005 and repeated it on June 9, 2005. These workshops focused on preparation of Stormwater Control Plans. The workshops consisted of presentations and group exercises. Both workshops were addressed to municipal staff and land development professionals. Program staff and the Program’s C.3 consultant participated in development and/or review of Stormwater Control Plans for over a dozen current development projects. The C.3 Planning & Permitting Work Group members have been routinely reviewing projects under C.3 review and discussing common issues and solutions. The purpose of this presentation is to provide a progress report on the Program’s assistance to municipal staff and land development professionals; and, to review lessons learned thus far. Municipalities are strongly encouraged to share this information with municipal staff involved in C.3 reviews, and, if necessary, incorporate or modify policies or practices in response to lessons learned. See related topic under Action Item “A.” Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): To be provided at the meeting. TD/DPF:kh G:\GrpData\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\05 06\Nov 05\Pres Item A Nov 05.doc

Date: November 16, 2005 To: Management Committee From: Tom Dalziel, Senior Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Dan Cloak, Program Consultant Dan Cloak Environmental Consulting Subject: Presentation Item B – Mapping Contra Costa HMP Exemptions

Recommendation: Receive a presentation regarding the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program’s (Santa Clara) methodology for mapping its HMP exemptions; and, the estimated costs and resources available to map similar areas of exemptions in Contra Costa County. Background: At the August 17, 2005 Management Committee meeting, Dan Cloak made a presentation comparing the key characteristics of Santa Clara’s adopted HMP with Contra Costa’s proposed HMP. In particular, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) adopted Santa Clara’s proposal to exempt from HMP compliance projects smaller than 20 acres in less-developed watersheds and smaller than 50 acres in partially developed watersheds. The Water Board also agreed to limit a developer’s costs for HMP and treatment control compliance to 2% of construction costs, not including land. The Management Committee discussed the information provided in the presentation and directed Program staff to gather information about Santa Clara’s methodology for mapping their exemptions and to estimate costs and resources available to map the exemptions in Contra Costa County using Santa Clara’s criteria. This presentation will review information gathered, note the “pros” and “cons” of pursuing these exemptions, and ask you to consider Program staff’s recommended next steps. Management Committee input and policy direction will be sought under Staff Report “A.”

Fiscal Impact: To be reviewed at the Management Committee meeting. Attachment(s): None. TD/DPF:kh G:\GrpData\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\05 06\Nov 05\Pres Item B Nov 05.doc

Date: November 16, 2005

To: Management Committee From: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Presentation Item C – Strategies for New Revenue for Stormwater

Management

Recommendation: Receive information regarding options to generate new revenue for implementation of stormwater management activities. Background: A session was held at the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Conference held last month regarding the generation of new revenue for the implementation of stormwater management activities. Mr. John Bliss of Shilts Consulting provided an overview of the various revenue sources and opportunities for accessing these funds. Program staff contacted Mr. Bliss to provide a presentation to the Management Committee regarding this subject. The information is very useful and will help provide the Management Committee information regarding the direction we should take regarding the generation of new revenue. New revenue is needed since most of the Program’s co-permittees are at their maximum Stormwater Utility Assessment’s (SUA’s) Equivalent Run-off Unit (ERU) and new requirements such a monitoring, C.3 compliance and total maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements are coming in the foreseeable future. Attached to this memorandum are overheads of the presentation Mr. Bliss provided at the CASQA Conference. These may be similar to the presentation he makes at the November 16, 2005 Management Committee meeting. Fiscal Impact: None.

Attachment(s): 1. “Strategies for New Revenue for Stormwater Management, California Case

Studies,” October 4, 2005 overheads by John Bliss. 2. Letter from the Program dated November 2, 2005 to John Bliss regarding his

presentation at the November 16, 2005 Management Committee meeting. DPF:kh G:\GrpData\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\05 06\Nov 05\Pres Item C Nov 05.doc

John Bliss, P.E., specializes in assessment engineering, database design and implementation, and revenue measure formations for Shilts Consultants, Inc (SCI). He has over 15 years of experience with public works construction, engineering, infrastructure policy and database applications, primarily working with stormwater projects and programs. During the 1990s, Mr. Bliss served as Project Manager for Shimmick Construction Company on the construction of the Mariposa Facilities ($10 million) and Islais Creek “C” Combined Storage Facilities ($45 million) for the City of San Francisco Clean Water Program. Since then, Mr. Bliss has focused on revenue processes for stormwater infrastructure, and has extensive Proposition 218 and assessment engineering expertise. He has served as the lead assessment engineer and project manager for over ten new community-wide benefit assessment districts and over 20 developer/landowner benefit assessment districts over the last three years alone.

Mr. Bliss has been active in a number of statewide and local political campaigns and recently concluded his service as Vice Chair of the City of Oakland's Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. He is the instructor of "Database Design for Project Management" at UC Berkeley Extension. Mr. Bliss graduated from Brown University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering, and holds a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, where he was a Regent's Scholar. He is a licensed professional Civil Engineer in the State of California.

Response to Call for Papers and Presentations Strategies for New Revenue for Stormwater Management: California Case Studies Presentation Only (no Manuscript) Author: John W. Bliss, P.E., Vice President, Shilts Consultants, Inc. john_bliss@shilts.com 707-426-5016 Long Presentation The need for increased funding to public agencies for stormwater management activities is abundantly clear. Increasingly strict permitting requirements will dictate that these revenues grow faster than consumer price indices and/or general fund property taxes. Several viable approaches exist within California’s strict framework for taxes, fees and assessments, as structured by Proposition 13 and 218 code. These approaches must carefully balance legal requirements, technical needs and political realities. A precise comparison of special taxes, property-related fees and benefit assessments will be presented juxtaposing the legal, technical and political strengths of each one. Specific case studies of public agency efforts within California will be used to illustrate aspects of each approach. A status report will be given on potential legislative changes to Proposition 218 and their potential effect on stormwater management funding. Over the past twelve months, two major surveys have been conducted in Southern California by Shilts Consultants, Inc. designed specifically to measure latent community support for stormwater pollution control amongst property owner and registered voter populations. These surveys addressed i.) Determination of the optimal revenue method to use, ii.) Prioritization by the public of specific elements of stormwater management and iii.) Establishment of a matrix relating proposed tax/fee /assessment thresholds and corresponding levels of support. The results of these surveys will be presented. Additionally, a number of other recent surveys measured and identified “hot buttons” and “catch phrases”, pertaining to stormwater that transcend specific geographic area and may be incorporated into community outreach efforts. The results of these surveys will also be presented. Finally, strategies for balloting and the corresponding community outreach efforts, based upon technical analyses of survey results, will be described and discussed. Outline of Presentation:

• California Revenue Processes for Stormwater Management • Potential Legislative Changes to Proposition 218 in regards to Stormwater Management • Presentation of Results of Recent Stormwater Survey • Balloting Strategies: California Case Studies.

John Bliss, P.E., specializes in assessment engineering, database design and implementation, and revenue measure formations for Shilts Consultants, Inc (SCI). He has over 15 years of experience with public works construction, engineering, infrastructure policy and database applications, primarily working with stormwater projects and programs. During the 1990s, Mr. Bliss served as Project Manager on the construction of the Mariposa Facilities ($10 million) and Islais Creek “C” Combined Storage Facilities ($45 million) for the City of San Francisco Clean Water Program. Since then, Mr. Bliss has focused on revenue processes for stormwater infrastructure, and has extensive Proposition 218 and assessment engineering expertise. He has served as the lead assessment engineer and project manager for over ten new community-wide benefit assessment districts and over 20 developer/landowner benefit assessment districts over the last three years alone. Mr. Bliss has been active in a number of statewide and local political campaigns and recently concluded his service as Vice Chair of the City of Oakland's Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. He is the instructor of "Database Design for Project Management" at UC Berkeley Extension. Mr. Bliss graduated from Brown University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering, and holds a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley, where he was a Regent's Scholar. He is a licensed professional Civil Engineer in the State of California.

Strategies for New Strategies for New Revenue for Revenue for StormwaterStormwater

Management: Management:

California Case StudiesCalifornia Case StudiesCalifornia California StormwaterStormwater Quality Association Quality Association

ConferenceConferenceOctober 4, 2005October 4, 2005

John Bliss, P.E.John Bliss, P.E.john_bliss@john_bliss@shiltsshilts.com.comShiltsShilts Consultants, Inc.Consultants, Inc.

SyllabusSyllabus

Revenue Sources and OpportunitiesRevenue Sources and OpportunitiesOverviewOverviewPropertyProperty--Related FeesRelated FeesProcessProcess

StormwaterStormwater Survey LessonsSurvey Lessons

Community Outreach StrategiesCommunity Outreach Strategies

I. RevenueI. RevenueSources Sources and and OpportunitiesOpportunities

“…there’s got to be an better way…”

In California, we have few choices In California, we have few choices for new revenue sources….for new revenue sources….

Registered Voter 2/3Registered Voter 2/3rdsrds MeasuresMeasuresGeneral Obligation BondGeneral Obligation BondSales TaxSales TaxParcel TaxParcel TaxCFD Tax (Mello CFD Tax (Mello RoosRoos

Majority Property Owner MeasuresMajority Property Owner MeasuresBenefit AssessmentBenefit Assessment

Either…Property Related FeesEither…Property Related FeesNonNon--ballot Fees (water, sewer, garbage)ballot Fees (water, sewer, garbage)Voter/Owner Approved Prop FeesVoter/Owner Approved Prop Fees

California Prop. 13 & Prop. 218 California Prop. 13 & Prop. 218 Summary TableSummary Table

Special Tax Prop. Fees Prop. Fees Assessment

Who Decides? Voters Voters Owners Owners

Approval Threshold 2/3rds 2/3rds 50%+ 50%+

Election Period 1 Day 1 Day 90 Days 45 Days

Election Venue Polling Booth Polling Booth Mailed Ballot Mailed Ballot

Cost Depends Depends 2 Notices Depends

Special Benefit Not required Not required* Not required* Required

Use of Funds Wide Range Flexible Flexible More Limited

Proposition 218 Proposition 218 “Property“Property--Related Fees” Related Fees” for for StormwaterStormwater FundingFunding

Proposition 218, passed by California voters in Proposition 218, passed by California voters in November of 1996November of 1996

“California Attorney General analyzed several fees “California Attorney General analyzed several fees proposed by the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control proposed by the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District and concluded that the proposed storm water fee District and concluded that the proposed storm water fee is a propertyis a property--related fee.”related fee.”

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of SalinasHoward Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Salinas

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of RosevilleHoward Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. City of Roseville

Sidebar:Sidebar:Current Proposition 218 Current Proposition 218

LegislationLegislation

Current Language:Current Language:Balloting Required “…except for fees or charges for Balloting Required “…except for fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services,…”sewer, water, and refuse collection services,…”

Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 13:Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 13:“This measure would exclude from these requirements “This measure would exclude from these requirements any levy for flood control purposes.” any levy for flood control purposes.”

Property Related Fee ProcessProperty Related Fee ProcessThe procedural steps are summarized as follows:The procedural steps are summarized as follows:

Prepare Fee Study including budgets and fee methodologyPrepare Fee Study including budgets and fee methodologyAgency approves Fee Study and calls for public hearing on Agency approves Fee Study and calls for public hearing on proposed feesproposed feesNotice of Public Hearing mailed to all property ownersNotice of Public Hearing mailed to all property owners

45 day Notice of Public Hearing period45 day Notice of Public Hearing periodPublic Hearing on proposed feesPublic Hearing on proposed feesBallots are mailed to all property ownersBallots are mailed to all property owners

4545--day balloting periodday balloting periodPublic Hearing to close ballotingPublic Hearing to close ballotingTabulation of ballotsTabulation of ballotsAssessment can be levied if majority of ballots returned are in Assessment can be levied if majority of ballots returned are in supportsupport

Typical RatesTypical Rates

II. Survey LessonsII. Survey Lessons

“…someone looks pretty ridiculous…but who?”

Relative Importance of Relative Importance of Environmental IssuesEnvironmental Issues

Methodology OverviewMethodology OverviewPhone Surveys vs. Mailed SurveyPhone Surveys vs. Mailed SurveyLimitations of SurveysLimitations of Surveys

2 Major “2 Major “StormwaterStormwater--Focused” Surveys conducted Focused” Surveys conducted (2004 and 2005)(2004 and 2005)

Various other General Environmental Surveys.Various other General Environmental Surveys.

Mail survey to a randomized sample of property ownersMail survey to a randomized sample of property ownersApartment, business and other owners surveyed as wellApartment, business and other owners surveyed as well

Three funding assessment rates were tested Three funding assessment rates were tested Three survey versions (emphases) were tested Three survey versions (emphases) were tested

Level of Support vs. RateLevel of Support vs. Rate

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

$9.00 $18.00 $28.00Proposed Rates

Level of Support vs. Various AttributesLevel of Support vs. Various Attributes

Level of Support vs. EmphasisLevel of Support vs. EmphasisVersion T1Version T1•• Protect clean drinking water,Protect clean drinking water,•• Keep pollution out of the ocean, lakes and off our beaches,Keep pollution out of the ocean, lakes and off our beaches,•• Protect public health by removing dangerous pollutants and bacteProtect public health by removing dangerous pollutants and bacteria from ria from

water sources in the Countywater sources in the County

Version T2Version T2•• Protect clean drinking water,Protect clean drinking water,•• Improve water quality to new, stricter clean water standards by Improve water quality to new, stricter clean water standards by 2005,2005,•• Ensure the County is not fined up to $25,000 per day for nonEnsure the County is not fined up to $25,000 per day for non--compliance with compliance with

Federal clean water standardsFederal clean water standards

Version T3Version T3•• Keep pollution out of our streams, rivers and oceans,Keep pollution out of our streams, rivers and oceans,

•• Ensure Ensure stormwaterstormwater programs are paid for by locally generated fees,programs are paid for by locally generated fees,•• Provide fiscal responsibility and citizen oversight in Provide fiscal responsibility and citizen oversight in stormwaterstormwater expendituresexpenditures

Property Owner PrioritiesProperty Owner Priorities

III. Balloting StrategiesIII. Balloting Strategies

“…hmmmmmmmm...is this the best way to do this?…”

What Influences Property What Influences Property Owners?Owners?

1. 1. Notice and BallotNotice and Ballot2. 2. Media Media -- NewspapersNewspapers3. 3. Personal Contact & Word of MouthPersonal Contact & Word of Mouth4. 4. Direct MailDirect Mail5. 5. Phone Banks Phone Banks -- AutomatedAutomated6. 6. SignsSigns

Source: Strategic Research Institute 2002

Key MessagesKey MessagesDear Nature Conservancy/Trust for Public LandsDear Nature Conservancy/Trust for Public Lands

1. Do talk about “water” first and foremost1. Do talk about “water” first and foremost

2. Do stress “preserving” water quality.2. Do stress “preserving” water quality.

4. Do evoke “protecting wildlife” but DO NOT use 4. Do evoke “protecting wildlife” but DO NOT use “endangered species”“endangered species”

13. DO NOT ask voters to protect the land for someone 13. DO NOT ask voters to protect the land for someone elseelse

14. DO NOT focus on economic rationales14. DO NOT focus on economic rationales

15. Do connect to “future generations”15. Do connect to “future generations”

16. Do talk about yourselves as “conservationists” 16. Do talk about yourselves as “conservationists” –– not not “environmentalists”“environmentalists”

Stay on MessageStay on Message

Source 2004 Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates 24 point “Lessons Learned” for The Nature Conservancy/Trust For Public Lands

Messaging Messaging –– An IntroductionAn Introduction

Clear and ConsistentClear and Consistente.g. “Clean Water Measure” e.g. “Clean Water Measure”

Stay on MessageStay on Messagee.g. “Clean Water” not “…45 days…”e.g. “Clean Water” not “…45 days…”

“Fee” or "Measure“, not “Tax”“Fee” or "Measure“, not “Tax”Develop Key MessagesDevelop Key MessagesDistribute Messaging to TeamDistribute Messaging to TeamQ and A, Talking Points, etc.Q and A, Talking Points, etc.Stay on MessageStay on Message

“Bread and Butter” Community “Bread and Butter” Community OutreachOutreach

Notice and BallotNotice and BallotMedia ManagementMedia ManagementCommunity & Stakeholder GroupsCommunity & Stakeholder GroupsLocal Staff and “Local Staff and “ElectedsElecteds””CommitteesCommittees

Why No? OppositionWhy No? Opposition

Identify Opposition Groups Identify Opposition Groups Organized?Organized?Funded?Funded?Relationship with the media?Relationship with the media?

Lack of sense of needLack of sense of needMonitor, Contact and EducateMonitor, Contact and EducateWhat do people think of the Agency?What do people think of the Agency?Monitor Other Political MeasuresMonitor Other Political Measures

StormwaterStormwater: A Special Challenge: A Special Challenge

MultiMulti--Agency RelationshipsAgency RelationshipsJoint Powers AgreementsJoint Powers Agreements

Conclusions and Next StepsConclusions and Next StepsPropertyProperty--RelatedRelated--Fee with Balloting is Suitable and Legally RigorousFee with Balloting is Suitable and Legally RigorousSpecial Taxes are a reasonable alternativeSpecial Taxes are a reasonable alternative

Use Survey to Measure Rate Threshold and Local PrioritiesUse Survey to Measure Rate Threshold and Local Priorities

Educate, Don’t AdvocateEducate, Don’t Advocate

Stay on Message: “Clean Water”Stay on Message: “Clean Water”

Notice of Public HearingNotice of Public HearingNotice and Ballot Notice and Ballot Media ManagementMedia ManagementCommunity and Government StakeholdersCommunity and Government StakeholdersManage OppositionManage Opposition

Strategies for New Strategies for New Revenue for Revenue for StormwaterStormwater

Management: Management:

California Case StudiesCalifornia Case Studies

California California StormwaterStormwater Quality Association ConferenceQuality Association ConferenceOctober 4, 2005October 4, 2005

John Bliss, P.E.John Bliss, P.E.john_bliss@john_bliss@shiltsshilts.com.comShiltsShilts Consultants, Inc.Consultants, Inc.

Questions or Comments?

Date: November 16, 2005

To: Management Committee From: Tom Dalziel, Senior Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Action Item A – APPROVE the C.3 Planning & Permitting and

Technical Work Groups’ Recommended Policy on the Use of Hydrodynamic Separators

Recommendation: Approve the C.3 Planning & Permitting and Technical Work Groups’ recommended policy on the use of hydrodynamic separators, and its accompanying technical memorandum. Background: The 2nd Edition of the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, adopted by the Management Committee on March 23, 2005, states (p. 62):

“Underground vaults, deflection separators, oil/water separators, and drain inlet inserts are discouraged. Underground vaults typically lack the detention time required for removal of pollutants associated with fine particles.”

In an August 5, 2004 letter (see attached), San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Executive Officer Bruce Wolfe stated that storm drain inlet filters and oil/water separators are inadequate to meet the "maximum extent practicable" standard for stormwater treatment. However, Mr. Wolfe's letter is less clear regarding the appropriate use of hydrodynamic separators and other vault-based treatment devices. Several municipalities have received and reviewed Stormwater Control Plans that proposed the use of hydrodynamic separators. Municipal representatives asked Program staff whether these devices are considered adequate for C.3 compliance. Program staff brought this question to the C.3 Planning/Permitting and Technical Work Groups for discussion. The Work Groups requested the Program prepare a

technical memorandum reviewing current knowledge of the treatment effectiveness of hydrodynamic separators. Program staff assigned this task to Dan Cloak, the Program's C.3 consultant. Dan prepared the attached November 3, 2005 technical memorandum. The memorandum concludes that hydrodynamic separators do not meet the "maximum extent practicable" criterion for stormwater treatment because other, more substantially effective devices, such as "dry" swales, stormwater planter boxes, and bioretention areas, have proven to be generally feasible for use on typical Contra Costa County development sites. After reviewing the technical memorandum, the C.3 Work Groups recommended these conclusions be drafted as a policy (see attached) for consideration by the Management Committee. The C.3 Work Groups also recommend the policy and technical memorandum be distributed as a single document. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): 1. August 5, 2004 Letter from Bruce Wolfe. 2. November 3, 2005 Technical Memorandum prepared by Dan Cloak. 3. Recommended Policy on the Use of Hydrodynamic Separators. TD/DPF:kh G:\GrpData\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\05 06\Nov 05\Act Item A Nov 05.doc

Date: November 16, 2005

To: Management Committee From: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Action Item B – APPROVE the Collection of Impervious Surface

Data for C.3 Compliance by Each Co-permittee

Recommendation: Receive presentation by Program staff related to a request by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for collection of impervious surface data. Background: The requirement to collect impervious surface data was contained in the amendment the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) approved for new and redevelopment activities in our Joint Municipal NPDES Permit (Permit). Each co-permittee was to collect information consistent with Provision C.3 commencing February 2003 for any new project equal to or great than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. Program staff believes all co-permittees have not been collecting this information which makes us vulnerable regarding Permit compliance. An issue has also arisen since the Regional Board’s amendment of the Santa Clara Valley Stormwater Management Program’s (Santa Clara Program) Permit on July 20, 2005. After the adoption of their amendment, environmental groups and organizations complained to the Regional Board that they went too far in providing exemptions regarding C.3 compliance. Two weeks after the July 20, 2005 adoption, an enforcement letter (i.e. a “13627” Letter) was issued to the Santa Clara Program; and, Regional Board staff indicated other stormwater programs within their jurisdiction would be receiving a similar letter. Subsequently, the Bay Area Stormwater Agencies Association (BASMAA) had a meeting with the San Francisco Bay Regional Board Executive Officer, Mr. Bruce Wolfe, to discuss the situation. The Executive Officer agreed to rescind the “13267” Letter, but he still wants to collect this information.

Their primary purpose for collecting the information is to examine the 10,000 square foot threshold contained in our Joint Municipal NPDES Permit. Most other jurisdictions in California have a 5,000 square foot threshold. Some information was collected by the Santa Clara Program regarding projects and collecting data regarding the amount of new impervious surface created by such projects. Based upon this information, Regional Board staff has extrapolated this information and is of the opinion the 10,000 square foot threshold should not be maintained. A workshop was conducted by the San Francisco Bay Regional Board on October 11, 2005. The San Francisco Bay Regional Board did request impervious surface data be collected. Discussions occurred among Program staff and the Administrative Committee at their November 1, 2005 meeting. Program staff will be discussing this item in greater detail at the November 16, 2005 Management Committee meeting. Generally speaking, the recommendation of Program staff is to collect more detailed impervious surface information commencing January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006. Any project requiring a building permit would need to detail the new impervious surface created from the project. Program staff believes this information could provide necessary documentation to sustain the 10,000 square foot threshold presently contained in our amended Permit. Absent this information, Program staff believes providing an argument to sustain the threshold is dubious. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): None. DPF:kh G:\GrpData\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\05 06\Nov 05\Act Item B Nov 05.doc

Date: November 16, 2005 To: Management Committee From: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Action Item C – APPROVE the Administrative Committee’s

Recommendation to Cancel the December 21, 2005 Management Committee Meeting

Recommendation: Request the December 21, 2005 Management Committee meeting be cancelled. Background: Program staff discussed the possibility of canceling or changing the December 21st Management Committee (MC) meeting with the Administrative Committee (AC). The recommendation of the AC is to cancel the meeting because a special meeting regarding the Municipal Regional Permit is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, December 14, 2005, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. in Oakland. The ability to reschedule our December meeting is limited due to the holiday schedule. So, matters will be held over to the January 2006 Management Committee meeting for consideration. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): None. DPF:kh G:\GrpData\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\05 06\Nov 05\Act Item C Nov 05.doc

Date: November 16, 2005 To: Management Committee From: Tom Dalziel, Senior Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Staff Report A – Status of Contra Costa Clean Water Program’s

Hydrograph Modification Management Plan Recommendation: Receive report and provide policy direction on HMP next steps. Background: The Contra Costa Clean Water Program has been waiting nearly six months for the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) staff’s review of our May 15, 2005 Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP) submittal. On September 20, in the Program’s most recent attempt to obtain Regional Board staff’s review, Program staff and consultants met with Christine Boschen, Dale Bowyer, Larry Kolb, Shin-Roei Lee, Keith Lichten, and Jan O’Hara. At that meeting, participants agreed to the following final steps: ■ Regional Board staff would identify any remaining questions regarding

methods used to develop Integrated Management Practices (IMP) sizing factors (1 week – September 27, 2005).

■ Regional Board staff would identify any remaining questions regarding the adjustment of IMP sizing factors for different areas within the County using corresponding differences in rainfall (1 week – September 27, 2005).

■ If necessary, Jan O’Hara would contact Christie Beeman, of Philip Williams and Associates, the Program’s HMP consultant, to resolve any remaining questions she may have regarding how antecedent conditions are accounted for in a continuous simulation model (1 week – September 27, 2005).

■ Christie Beeman would re-plot the IMP flow duration statistics as requested by Jan (1-2 weeks – October 4, 2005).

■ Program staff and consultants would prepare a conceptual monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness of the IMPs (1-2 weeks – October 4, 2005).

The last two items were provided nearly four weeks ago. The follow-up telephone call—Christine Boschen and Jan O’Hara called Christie Beeman, who answered all their questions—took place on October 13. It took Regional Board staff six weeks to respond to the Program’s February 2004 HMP Work Plan, four months to respond to our November 2004 draft HMP, and now almost six months (and counting) to respond to the final HMP. The purpose of this staff report is to review and discuss the status of the Program’s HMP, the information presented under Presentation Item “B,” and the Program’s recommended next steps. Fiscal Impact: Unknown. Attachment(s): Attachments, if any, will be provided at the meeting. TD:DPF:kh G:\GrpData\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\05 06\Nov 05\Staff Rpt A Nov 05.doc

Date: November 16, 2005 To: Management Committee From: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Staff Report B – Personnel Update Recommendation: Receive information. Background: The Contra Costa Clean Water Program created a second Watershed Management Planning Specialist position in the 2002/03 fiscal year. The position was filled by Mr. Jeff Smyly in January 2003. He then went on active military status ten weeks later. The position has been vacant since this time. The Program has a consulting services agreement with Eisenberg, Olivieri & Associates, Inc. (EOA) to assist the Program on technical issues. The individual assigned from EOA is Mr. Chris Sommers. An examination request was submitted after Mr. Smyly decided not to return to his position and the Management Committee (MC) approved the 2005/06 fiscal year budget with the appropriate funding for this position. The Contra Costa County Human Resources Department conducted the initial examination. Three members of the MC participated in the oral interview (i.e. Ken Strelo, City of Pittsburg; Jeff Roubal, City of Concord; and, Maya Rappaport, City of Orinda). The ranked employment list was issued to the Contra Costa Clean Water Program and interviews were held. I am happy to announce that Ms. Jamison Crosby has accepted the position and will begin employment on Monday, November 28, 2005. She has a Masters Degree in Landscape Architecture from the University of California at Berkeley. She has been employed with CalTrans developing project plan, specifications and cost estimates (PS&E) for erosion controls and water pollution controls on highway projects. She has also reviewed pollution prevention plans, stormwater data reports and encroachment permits for highway construction projects. She worked as an Environmental Engineer for Parsons Transportation Company and as an Environmental Scientist for Burns & McDonald Engineering Company.

Program staff is excited about filling this position and ask you to welcome her to our team. Fiscal Impact: The salary and benefits of the Water Management Planning Specialist was approved in the 2005/06 budget. A cost savings of approximately five (5) months of salary and benefits will occur in this fiscal year. Attachment(s): None. DPF:kh G:\GrpData\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\05 06\Nov 05\Staff Rpt B Nov 05.doc

Date: November 16, 2005 To: Management Committee From: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Staff Report C – Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) Update Recommendation:

Receive information.

Background:

The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board (Regional Board) and the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) have been endeavoring for the past year and a half to develop a Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) for consideration by all co-permittees in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. As previously reported, work groups have been established to focus on specific areas of the proposed permit. Tom Dalziel is serving as BASMAA’s representative on the New and Redevelopment C.3 Committee. All work groups are to conclude their work by November 19, 2005, but Program staff does not believe this date will be achieved due to the complexity of some of the issues. A workshop has been tentatively scheduled for co-permittees on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Program staff strongly suggests representatives from each municipality be present at this meeting. Concepts and issues will be discussed. Input from the various co-permittees is needed. Each Program should have its Management Committee representative and other municipal representatives attend. It is important for the Regional Board to hear your comments and have your questions answered. Staff will provide more comments at the November 16, 2005 Management Committee meeting. Fiscal Impact: None.

Attachment(s): None. DPF:kh G:\GrpData\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\05 06\Nov 05\Staff Rpt C Nov 05.doc

Date: November 16, 2005 To: Management Committee From: Donald P. Freitas, Program Manager Contra Costa Clean Water Program Subject: Staff Report D – San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board

Meeting Schedule Recommendation: Receive information. Background: Presently, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board (SFBRWQCB) meets on the third Wednesday of each month. As you are aware, issues directly impacting the Contra Costa Clean Water Program (Program) are frequently agendized for these meetings. This has caused some problems for staff since the Management Committee meetings are also on the third Wednesday of the month. Mr. Bruce Wolfe, Executive Officer of the SFBRWQCB, indicated last Thursday at a Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) meeting the SFBRWQCB would be changing their meeting schedule from the third Wednesday to the second Wednesday of each month. This is welcomed news for the Program since it provides us the opportunity to be more actively involved in the proceedings of the SFBRWQCB. This is simply an informational item for Management Committee members. Fiscal Impact: None. Attachment(s): None. DPF:kh G:\GrpData\NPDES\Management Committee\Packet\05 06\Nov 05\Staff Rpt D Nov 05.doc