Loading...
Resolution No. 78961 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28, RESOLUTION NO. 7896 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A PETITION TO THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD CONTESTING ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, LOS ANGELES REGION (NPDES NO. CAS004001) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO DO ALL OTHER ACTIONS DEEMED NECESSARY OR ADVISABLE CONCERNING THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PROCESS WHEREAS, the City of Vernon ("City") was issued a Permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region ("Board") on July 15, 1996, Order No. 96-054, which serves as the City's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit under the Federal Clean Water Act, as well as Waste Discharge Requirements for the City under the Porter Cologne Act. This Permit became effective on July 31, 1996, and expired on its own terms on June 30, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Board plans to adopt the Storm Water/Urban Runoff Permit for the County of Los Angeles and the Incorporated Cities ("MS4 Permit") on or after December 13, 2001, or thereafter. This MS4 Permit is an amendment to Board Order No. 96-054 ("existing MS4 Permit"); and WHEREAS, under the MS4 Permit, the City, along with 87 other incorporated cities in Los Angeles County and the County of Los Angeles, will be required to expand existing storm water treatment programs, as well as implement new storm water treatment programs, purported by the Board to improve the qualify of municipal storm water in a cost-effective manner. However, neither a cost -benefit study nor scientific information was performed by the Board to illustrate that the new programs would result in substantial improvements to storm water quality; and I WHEREAS, under the existing MS4 Permit, the cities negotiated 2 storm water treatment programs that were approved by the Board. As 3 cities implemented these programs, they were provided a "legal safe 4 harbor" or deemed in compliance with the existing MS4 Permit, 5 effectively protecting the cities from Board fines and removing cities 6 from the threat of third -party litigation. The Board adopted MS4 7 Permit requires that cities implement new and untested technologies to 8 treat storm water. Compliance with the MS4 Permit will be achieved 9 through monitoring storm water quality. The Board is proposing that 10 cities be subjected to fines and third party litigation during these 11 experimental phases. A recent study ordered by the United States 12 Congress and completed by the National Research council recommended 13 that storm water programs utilize `adaptive implementation," 14 recognizing that cities should not be subjected to fines and legal 15 action while they are developing new, untested storm water programs. 16 The removal of the "legal safe harbor" clause is unacceptable to the 17 cities and constitutes a fundamental issue of fairness. Cities that 18 move ahead and implement new, untested programs, should not be 19 subjected to fines and litigation; and 20 WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit contains provisions that require the 21 City to adopt new ordinances and policies for the review and approval 22 of development projects in areas where discretion has been reserved 23 for local government. These new requirements violate local police 24 power and in some cases require that the City adopt regulations that 25 will violate property owners' constitutional rights against illegal 26 searches and seizures of property; and 27 WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit contains numerous unfunded mandates, 28 including new illicit connection programs, storm water diversion and - 2 - l treatment programs, additional street and storm drain maintenance 2 requirements, trash removal programs, as well as expanding the current 3 site visitation program to a mandatory inspection program of thousands 4 of properties throughout the various watershed areas. These unfunded 5 mandates present financial problems for the cities, especially in 6 light of the declining economy and threat by the State to reduce and 7 eliminate the Vehicle License Backfill in the upcoming budget; and 8 WHEREAS, the actions planned to be taken by the Board on 9 December 13, 2001, or thereafter, are inconsistent with the 10 requirements of the Clean Water Act and State law and will result in 11 the imposition of unsupportable programs on the City and its 12 citizenry, whereby the economics and fiscal analysis of the mandated 13 programs have not been conducted, and the financial capability of the 14 cities has not been considered, all as required under the Clean Water 15 Act and State law. 16 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 17 CITY OF VERNON AS FOLLOWS: 18 SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby 19 finds and determines that the recitals contained hereinabove are true 20 and correct. 21 SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby 22 approves and authorizes participating with the other cities, aspart 23 of the Coalition for Practical Regulation, in the filing of a Petition 24 to the State Water Resources Control Board challenging the action 25 taken by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board in 26 connection with the Storm Water Management/Urban Runoff Permit for the 27 County of Los Angeles and the Incorporated Cities on or after 28 December 13, 2001. 3 - SECTION 3: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby authorizes the expenditure of $5,000.00 to cover the cost of filing the administrative challenge. SECTION 4: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby authorizes the retention of counsel to represent the Coalition for Practical Regulations to advise, assist and represent the City in the filing of the Petition to the State Water Resources Control Board. SECTION 5: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby authorizes the City Administrator to execute any documents necessary to implement and carry out the purposes of said challenge. SECTION 6 The City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall certify to the passage of this resolution, and thereupon and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of January, 2002. ATTES v BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk c` LEONIS C. MAL URG, Myor - 4 - STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) I, BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 7896, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Vernon at an adjourned regular meeting of the City Council duly held on Tuesday, January 22, 2002, and thereafter was duly signed by the Mayor of the City of Vernon.. BJCE V. MALKENHORST City Clerk (SEAL) - 5 - SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CITY COUNCIL ` LEONIS C. MALBURG Mayor THOMAS A. YBARRA Mayor Pro-Tem WM. 'BILL" DAVIS Councilman H. "LARRY" GONZALES Councilman W. MICHAEL MCCORMICK Councilman BRUCE V. MALKENHORST City Administrator / City Clerk FAX (323) 826-1438 City Council City of Vernon Honorable Members: EDUARDO OLIVO City Attorney FAX: (562) 927-8722 { I� KEVIN WILSON Director of Community Services & Water FAX: (323) 826-1435 KENNETH J. DeDARIO Director of Municipal Utilities ty �� FAX: (323) 826-1425 STEVEN E. PARKER t` Fire Chief FAX: (323) 826-1407 CITY HALL �/ BRUCE W. OLSON 4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058 Police Chief TELEPHONE (323) 583-8811 FAX: (323)826-1481 January 17, 2001 11.1 V The City has been a co-permittee of the municipal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) since 1996 and a member of the Coalition for Practical Regulation (CPR). The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (regional board) is proposing a permit that is more stringent and costly for the year 2002 that will require the following: • Extremely high costs for Co-Permittees. • Implementation of trash mitigation controls at catch basins, storm drains, or on industrial property. • Mandatory inspections to regional board areas without compensation to the cities. • Mandatory pollution mitigation controls to businesses to be adopted and enforced by the Vernon City Code. The City has filed a petition with the State Board in Sacramento contesting the actions taken by the regional board. It is hereby recommended that the petition be ratified and that the petition administrative filing cost of $5,000.00 be approved. Very truly yours, Bruce V. Malkenhorst City Administrator/City Clerk BVM/ng 1 REDEIVEDF JAN 1 0- 2002 Y V ��' Community. services Lys„.�, Gon�ips«NoKdYNrMr Me o To: Bruce Malkenhorst, City. Administrator From: Samuel Kevin Wilson, Director of Community Services and Water RE: NPDES Resolution Data: January 7, 2002 Subject Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City of Vernon to Initiate Actions Challenging the Proposed New Municipal NPDES Permit Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing (1) the City of Vernon, as a member of the Coalition for Practical Regulation ("CPR") to file an administrative challenge to the proposed municipal storm water NPDES permit; and (2) the expenditure of $5,000.00 for this purpose. Background The City has been a co-permittee to the current municipal NPDES permit (" permit') since 1996. It is also a member of CPR, a group of over 30 cities that was formed in response to excessive storm water permit requirements called for the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board ('regional board'). The permit is scheduled to be re -issued by the regional board on December 13, 2001 (this date could change, however). The permit, as proposed by the regional board, is significantly more stringent and costly than the current one. A short list of examples include the following: • A provision that would place the City immediately into non-compliance. For example, if a piece of trash enters a water body from within its jurisdiction, and is discovered, the City would be in violation. The regional board would then require the City to implement actions to prevent a further occurrence. This could include costly trash mitigation controls. These controls could be placed in catch basins, storm drains, or on industrial or commercial property. Other pollutants that could necessitate expensive treatment controls include nutrients, metals, and pathogens. The cost of these controls would be beyond the fiscal reach of most cities. GZcoff ft DocunerbWPDESMDES Pasdudom-Adopion of Rwdt4ion.doc • Requiring the City to do industrial inspections and enforcement for the regional board. The City has several hundred facilities that are covered under special permits issued by the regional board and is also actually supposed to inspect them. The regional board wants cities to inspect these facilities for them, without compensation. Further, the City would be placed in the position of having to require its businesses to install pollution mitigation controls (e.g., trash mitigation devices, oil/grease Pikers, etc.). The City would also be compelled to enforce this requirement through its municipal code. • Practically every new development and redevelopment project would require costly mandatory infiltration and treatment controls. As it stands now, municipalities have the discretion to determine if such controls are needed. • A dry weather diversion system that would direct all non -storm water generated within the City (e.g. landscape irrigation, air conditioning condensate, swimming pool discharges, residential car wash water), to a sewer treatment facility. The cost of this control is extremely prohibitive (ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars, depending on the size of the City). If the proposed permit is adopted on December 13th, the City must file a petition challenging its provisions within 30 days Jamery:-131h hi 99"s-ease. - The petition will be filed with the State Board in Sacramento. CPR expects that the state board will convene a hearing to review the merits of the petition after the petition is filed. If the state board rejects the appeal or does not respond favorably to municipal concerns, the next step could be litigation. Should this become necessary, staff will ask City Council for direction. FISCAL IMPACT The exact -cost impact of the new permit is not known at this time because the draft permit was issued only a few weeks ago. Some costs Cannot be fully estimated because the permit enables the regional board to impose .additional requirements on municipalities after it is adopted. Final costs to the City could range from hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions. The cost of filing the administrative appeal with the state board and participating in an evidentiary hearing is expected cost the City no more than $5,000.00. cc: City Attomey ' 0 Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A PETION TO THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD CONTESTING ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, LOS ANGELES REGION, IN CONNECTION WITH THE STORM WATER/URBAN RUNOFF PERMIT FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE INCORPORATED CITIES THEREIN (NPDES NO. CAS004001) WHEREAS, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region ("Board") plans to adopt the Storm Water/Urban Runoff Permit for the County of Los Angeles and the incorporated cities ("MS4 Permit") on or after December 13, 2001, or thereafter. This MS4 Permit is an amendment to Board Order No. 96-054 ("existing MS4 Permit"); and WHEREAS, under the MS4 Permit, the City of Vernon), along with 87 other incorporated cities in Los Angeles County and the County of Los Angeles, will be required to expand existing storm water treatment programs, as well as implement new storm water treatment programs, purported by the Board to improve the quality of municipal storm water in a cost-effective manner. However, neither a cost -benefit study nor scientific information was performed by the Board to illustrate that the new programs would result in substantial improvements to storm water quality. WHEREAS, under the existing MS4 Permit, the cities negotiated storm water treatment programs that were approved by the Board. As cities implemented these programs, they were provided a "legal safe harbor" or deemed in compliance with the existing MS4 Permit, effectively protecting the cities from Board fines and removing cities from the threat of third -party litigation. The Board adopted MS4 Permit requires that cities implement new and untested technologies to treat storm water. Compliance with the MS4 Permit will be achieved through monitoring storm water quality. The Board is proposing that cities be subjected to fines and third party litigation during these experimental phases. A recent study ordered by the United States Congress and completed by the National Research Council recommended that storm water programs utilize "adaptive implementation", recognizing that cities should not be subjected to fines and legal action while they are developing new, untested storm water programs. The removal of the "legal safe harbor" clause is unacceptable to the cities and constitutes a fundamental issue of fairness. Cities that move ahead and implement new, untested programs, should- not be subjected to fines and litigation; and WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit contains provisions that require the City to adopt new ordinances and policies for the review and approval of development projects in areas where discretion has been reserved for local government. These new requirements violate local police power and in some cases require that the City to adopt regulations that will violate property owners constitutional rights against illegal searches and seizures of property; and WHEREAS, the MS4 Permit contains numerous, unfunded mandates, including new illicit connection programs, storm water diversion and treatment programs, additional street and storm drain maintenance requirements, trash removal programs, as well as expanding the current site visitation program to a mandatory inspection program of thousands of properties through out the various watershed areas. These unfunded mandates present financial problems for the cities, especially in light of the declining economy and threat by the State to reduce and eliminate the Vehicle License Backfili in the upcoming budget; and WHEREAS, the actions planned to be taken by the Board on December 13, 2001 or thereafter, are inconsistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act and State Law and will result in the imposition of unsupportable programs on the City and its citizenry, whereby the economics and fiscal analysis of the mandated programs have not been conducted, and the financial capability of the cities has not been considered, all as required under the Clean Water Act and State Law. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. To participate with the Coalition in the filing of a Petition to the State Water Resources Control Board challenging the action taken by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board in connection with the Storm Water Management/Urban Runoff Permit for the County of Los Angeles and the Incorporated Cities on or after December 13, 2001. Section 2. To authorize the expenditure of $5,000.00 to cover the cost of filing the administrative challenge. Section 3. That counsel representing the Coalition for Practical Regulations, be retained to advise, assist and represent the City in the filing of the Petition to the State Water Resources Control Board. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption hereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council this day of 2001. i Subject: Adoption of Resolution xxxx Authorizing the City of Vernon to Initiate Actions Challenging the Proposed New Municipal NPDES Permit Recommendation Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing (1) the City of Vernon, as a member of the Coalition for Practical Regulation ("CPR") to file an administrative challenge to the proposed municipal storm water NPDES permit; and (2) the expenditure of $5,000.00 for this purpose. Background The City has been a co-permittee to the current municipal NPDES permit ("permit") since 1996. It is also a member of CPR, a group of over 30 cities that was formed in response to excessive storm water permit requirements called for the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board ("regional board"). The permit is scheduled to be re -issued by the regional board on December 13, 2001 (this date could change, however). The permit, as proposed by the regional board, is significantly more stringent and costly than the current one. A short list of examples include the following: A provision that would place the City immediately into non-compliance. For example, if a piece of trash enters a water body from within its jurisdiction, and is discovered, the City would be in violation. The regional board would then require the City to implement actions to prevent a further occurrence. This could include costly trash mitigation controls. These controls could be placed in catch basins, storm drains, or on industrial or commercial property. Other pollutants that could necessitate expensive treatment controls include nutrients, metals, and pathogens. The cost of these controls would be beyond the fiscal reach of most cities. Requiring the City to do industrial inspections and enforcement for the regional board. The City has several hundred facilities that are covered under special permits issued by the regional board and is also actually supposed to inspect them. The regional board wants cities to inspect these facilities for them, without compensation. Further, the City would be placed in the position of having to require its businesses to install pollution mitigation controls (e.g., trash mitigation devices, oil/grease filters, etc.). The City would also be compelled to enforce this requirement through its municipal code. Practically every new development and redevelopment project would require costly mandatory infiltration and treatment controls. As it stands now, municipalities have the discretion to determine if such controls are needed. A dry weather diversion system that would direct all non -storm water generated within the City (e.g. landscape irrigation, air conditioning condensate, swimming pool discharges, residential car wash water), to a sewer treatment facility. The cost of this control is extremely prohibitive (ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars, depending on the size of th60ty). If the proposed permit is adopted on December 13th, the City must file a petition challenging its provisions within 30 days January 13th in this case. The petition will be filed with the State Board in Sacramento. CPR expects that the state board will convene a hearing to review the merits of the petition after the petition is filed. If the state board rejects the appeal or does not respond favorably to municipal concerns, the next step could be litigation. Should this become necessary, staff will ask City Council for direction. FISCAL IMPACT The exact cost impact of the new permit is not known at this time because the draft permit was issued only a few weeks ago. Some costs cannot be fully estimated because the permit enables the regional board to impose additional requirements on municipalities after it is adopted. final costs to the City could range from hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions. The cost of filing the administrative appeal with the state board and participating in an evidentiary hearing is expected cost the City no more than $5,000.00. N ` R y Rigg, Scott From: Rigg, Scott Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 12:04 PM To: 'Eduard Schroder' Subject: RE: reso The City of Vernon will be adopting a Resolution challenging the new NPDES Permit at its next City council meeting . —Original Message — From: Eduard Schroder [SMTP:ESchroder@ci.signal-hM.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 9:16 AM To: 'srigg@ci.vemon.ca.us' Subject: FW: reso -----Original Message ---- From: Julie Riha Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 2:17 PM To: Eduard Schroder Subject: reso Administrative Assistant City of Signal Hill (562) 989-7306 << File: CPR RESO.doc >> << File: CPR STAF.doc >> i