sf bay area irwmp coordinating committee meeting summary location: san...

SF Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee Meeting Summary January 23, 2017

Location: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA; 3rd Floor Tuolumne Conference Room

1. Roll Call – Appointed FA representatives Present

WS-WQ WW-RW FP-SW Watershed Other • Mark Seedall,

CCWD

• Mark Boucher, CCCFCWCD (by phone)

• Brian Mendenhall, SCVWD (by phone)

• Steve Ritchie, Chair, SFPUC

Others Present: Brad Arnold, DWR Brenda Buxton, Coastal Conservancy Taylor Chang, SFPUC Rebecca Darr, SFEP By Phone: Matt Fabry, C/CAG of San Mateo County Tracy Hemmeter, SCVWD Mehdi Mizani, DWR Carl Morrison, Morrison & Associates Robyn Navarra, Zone 7 Matt Sagues, MMWD Jake Spaulding, SCWA

2. Status on Round 2, 2014 Drought Round, and 2015 Round 4 For Round 2, ABAG is processing the last quarter invoices and will be uploading them for DWR’s review this month. Projects that have been completed include the SFPUC’s project, EBMUD’s project, and CCWD’s San Pablo Rheem Creek Wetlands Restoration Project. There are three potential amendments to the following projects: MMWD’s Lagunitas Creek Watershed Sediment Reduction and Management Project, CCWD’s Rheem Creek project, and Redwood City’s Bayfront Canal and Atherton Channel Flood Improvement and Habitat Restoration project. For 2014 Drought Round, ABAG uploaded the quarter 4 report and DWR has reviewed it. DWR had a few questions and all comments should be addressed this week. Projects that have been completed include Zone 7’s project, Napa Sanitation’s project, Calistoga’s project, and StopWaste’s project. The

1 January 23, 2017 BAIRWMP CC Meeting Notes

amendment for the Stinson Beach project is complete. The amendment to SFPUC’s Lower Cherry Aqueduct project is in the process of being approved. For 2015 Round 4, ABAG uploaded quarter 1 invoices and reports in January. The Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit project can longer be funded under Round 4, so there are proposals for replacement projects. The Project Screening Committee (PSC) held a conference call to discuss alternatives to the Anderson Dam project. Tracy Hemmeter explained that as a result of new geo-technical information, the Anderson Dam project had to be re-designed and can no longer be completed by 2020 per the original grant agreement. SCVWD considered recommending other dam replacement projects as replacements, but these projects are not ready for implementation at this time. Ms. Hemmeter presented a 1-page sheet on SCVWD’s proposal to reallocate the funding to the San Francisquito Creek project. She emphasized the importance of keeping the benefits in the South Bay sub-region in order to maintain equitable distribution of funding across all four sub-regions. The San Francisquito Creek project is in need of $3.7 million of additional funding due to cost overruns related to the extension of the construction timeline. The project encountered issues with endangered species and had to add one additional year of construction. SCVWD has considered using funds from a different project upstream on the creek, but will not need to do so if the project receives the reallocated funds. The San Francisquito Creek project is located between San Mateo County and Santa Clara County and will meet both flood protection and habitat restoration goals for the region. The project is in construction and is in SCVWD’s voter-approved Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program. Rebecca Darr mentioned that San Mateo Resource Conservation District (RCD) project from Round 4 has had cost increases and that the Coordinating Committee (CC) may want to consider reallocating the Anderson Dam funding to their project. The RCD found that water storage ponds cost more than originally expected. Ms. Darr asked that the RCD be given some time to draft a proposal similar to SCVWD’s proposal outlining their need for additional funding. She estimated that they would request about $750,000-$1 million in additional funding. There was discussion around prioritizing both the geographic distribution of funding as well as functional area benefits. The San Mateo RCD project provides water storage and flood control benefits, while the San Francisquito Creek project provides geographic distribution benefits and functional area benefits. It was discussed that while the CC is open to considering these projects as replacements, the group isn’t open to reallocating funding to any other project from Round 4 unless there is a very clear need. Action Items:


• Ms. Darr will ask San Mateo RCD to provide a 1-page summary of their proposal for receiving the funds reallocated from the Anderson Dam project.

• Taylor Chang will schedule a call after February 15 with PSC to discuss the SCVWD and San Mateo RCD proposals.

3. Website Discussion Brian Mendenhall confirmed that internal staff at SCVWD has the capacity to move the BAIRWMP website onto WordPress. He is planning for the website to be moved over to WordPress by the end of February. Mr. Mendenhall is also working with Robyn Navarra to determine how to transfer the database component from the old platform to the new website. It may be necessary to use the remaining funds from the contract with David Siedband to prepare the data for migration to the new website. Once Mr. Mendenhall and Ms. Navarra determine what form to export the data in, David Siedband can begin transferring the data. There is $45,000 available to transfer the website onto WordPress and transfer over the database component. Mr. Mendenhall expects that the actual cost will lower and it may be beneficial to earmark any remaining funds for any future hosting needs or future updates. Action Items:

• Mr. Mendenhall will determine if additional funding is needed from the 4-party agreement for the work of transferring the website onto WordPress.

• Mr. Mendenhall and Robyn Navarra will continue to discuss options for database management.

4. Approach to Prop 1 IRWM DAC Involvement Funds Mr. Morrison stated that the Prop 1 IRWM DACI grant proposal for the Bay Area Funding Area was submitted to DWR on November 30th. DWR confirmed they received the proposal and asked for some clarifying information. For example, DWR wanted more information on the challenges associated with engaging tribal communities and clarification on the budget. EJCW should be submitting their responses to DWR’s questions this week. Mehdi Mizani commented that the North Coast funding area DACI proposal was finalized and the approval memo was signed December 21, 2016. DWR and North Coast are currently in the agreement development stage. is in contract with DWR already.


5. Announcements

Matt Fabry with C/CAG of San Mateo County announced that he would like San Mateo County’s Stormwater Resource Plan (SWRP) to be incorporated into the Bay Area IRWMP at the next CC meeting. In order to be eligible for state funding, San Mateo County’s SWRP needs to be accepted into the Bay Area IRWMP and submitted to the state by March 1st. The latest version of San Mateo County’s SWRP can be found here: http://ccag.ca.gov/srp/ Action Item:

• Ms. Chang will draft an addendum to formally adopt the San Mateo County SWRP into the Bay Area IRWMP for the February CC meeting.


http://ccag.ca.gov/srp/

BAIRWM PROP 84 Rounds 1-4

Sub-Regional Breakdown Functional Area Breakdown

Project Name

Recommended Funding

Amount North West East South Admin/Regional WS/WQ WW/RW PC/SW Hab/WShcl PlanningJAclm

Ro

und

1

Bair Island Restoration $1,265,000 $1,265,000

CCCSD.Concord Recycled Water Pipeline $1,030,000 $1,030,000

Central Dublin Recycled Water Distrib. 8. Retrofit Prof.

$1,130,000 $1,130,000

Conservation Program 5712,500 $712,500

Conservation Program $867,988 $862,988



Conservation Program $822,000 $821000




Conservation Program 5860,625 $860,625

Conservation Program $691,137$ $691,875


Conservation Program $756,750 5751,750

Conservation Program / Napa County Rainwater

Harvesting Pilot Project $250,000 $250,000

Conservation Program Admin $321,000 $321,000

East Bayshore Phase SA - Interstate 8E1 Pipeline $741,000 $741,000

Flood Infrastructure Mapping & Communication Tool $655,000 $655,000

Grant Administration $590,000 $590,000

Hacienda Avenue Green Street Improvement Proj. $2,000,000 52,000.000

Harding Park Recycled Water Project $2,114,000 $2,114,000

Napa State Hospital Pipeline Construction, Stage 1 5625,000 $625,000

Novato North Service Area Project $625,000 $525,000

Novato South Service Area - Hamilton Field. Stage 1 $625,000 $625,000

Pescadero Integrated Flood Reduction & Habitat

Enhancement Project $219,310 $219,310

Regional Green Infrastructure Project $2,315,881 $1315.881

Restoration Guidance and San Francisquito Watershed

Restoration $230,000 $115,000 5115,000

Richmond Shoreline & San Pablo Flood Project 585,000 585.0E0

S.F Estuary Steelhead Monitoring Program $378,166 5378,166

Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration $1,265,000 $1,265,000

Sonoma Valley Recycled Water Project, Stage 1 $625,000 $675,000

South Bay Advanced RW Treatment, Reverse Osmosis $2,485,000 $2,485,000

South Bay Salt Pond 166/17 Habitat Restoration $1,265,000 $1,265.000

Storm Water Improvements & Pilot Project at Bay Pl. $160.000 5160.000

Stream Restoration vo/ Schools in North Bay DACs $199,976 $199,976

Watershed Partnership Technical Assistance $150,000 $150,000

Watershed Program Administration 5173,574, 5123,574

Round 1 Sub total $30,093592! $6,864,351 $5,817,564 $8,616,231 56,725,625 $2,069,821

Bay Area Regional Water Conservation and Education

Program $1700,000 $654,377 5429,300 $976,011 $490312 $150,000

East Bayshore Recycled Water Project Phase 1A

(Emeryville) $1,000,000 $1,000,000

Lagunitas Creek Watershed Sediment Reduction and

Management 5770,000 5720,000

Marin/Sonoma Conserving our watersheds: Agricultural

BMP projects I $600,000 $600,000

2/24/17

Project Name

Recommended Funding

Amount North West East South Admin/Regional WS/WQ WW/RW FC/SW liala/W5hd Planning/Mm

Napa Milliken Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Fish

Passage Barrier Removal $500,000 $500000

North Bay Water Reuse Program - Sonoma Valley CSD

5th Street East/McGill Road Recycled Water Project $1,020.000 $1,020000

Oakland Sausal Creek Restoration 5500,000 5500,000

Pescadero Water Supply and Sustainability $700,000 $700,000

Petaluma Flood Reduction, Water & Habitat Quality, and

Recreation Project for Capri Creek 5825 000 5825.000

Redwood City Bayfront Canal and Atherton Channel

Flood Improvement and Habitat Restoration $1,135,000 $1,135.000

Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project

Phase 1A - South Westside Basin, Northern San Mateo

County $1,400,000 $1.400000

Richmond Breuner Marsh Restoration 5750,000 $750000

Roseview Heights Infrastructure Upgrades for Water

Supply and Quality Improvement, Santa Clara County 5500,000 5500,000

SF Bay Climate Change Pilot Projects Combining

Ecosystem Adaptation, Flood Risk Mgmt, Wastewater

Effluent Polishing $2,100,000 $2,100,000

San Francisco International Airport Industrial Waste

Treatment Plant and Reclaimed Water Facility

$750,000 5750.000

San icon Green Streets and Alle Demonstration $2.000000 $2000000

San Pablo Rheem Creek Wetlands Retoration $750,000 $750,000

St. Helena Upper York Creek Dam Removal and

Ecosystem Restoration $800,000 $800.000

Students and Teachers Restoring a Watershed (STRAW)

Project - North and East Bay Watersheds 5500.000 5500.0110

Rossrnor Well Replacement/Groundwater Monitoring

Well System Expansion $430,000 $430.000

Administration 5750,000 5750,000

Round 2 Sub total $20,430,000 $5,619,377 $4,414,300 $6506,011 $2,990,312 $900,000

Regional Conservation Program (Rebates only) $ i 993,971 $1 723 000 $1,070,000 $1,820,000 Si 000,000 $530,971

Regional Recycling (4) $12,750,000 $4,750,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000

Zone 7 Drought Preparedness 53,000,000 53,000,000

Lower Cherry Aquaduct ISFPUC) $3,000,000 $0 $2033,400 $334,200 $632,400

MMWD Wat rSMART Irrigation with AMI/AMR $975,000 $975,000

Drought Relief for San Mateo Coast (Pescadero.Butano

and San Oregano - San Mateo RED and American Rivers) 53,872,000 $3,872.000

Stinson Beach Water Supply & Conservation (Stinson

Beach) $937,452 5937A52

Administration 51,550:000 $1,650.000

Round 3 Sub total $32,178,423 $8,385,452 $6,975,400 $9,264,200 $5,632,400 $1,980,971

SF Ba Area AUPI 5 stem 519,000.000 54,250,000 55,500,000 $4,250,000 $5,000,000 519,000.000

Bay Area Reigonal Shoreline Resilience Program $12,462,822 $3,500000 $750,000 $3,206,037 $5 006 785 $6,044,351 $6 908 119

Coast San Mateo Count Drought Relief Phase il 51,400,000 51.400.000 51,400,000

Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit $4,090,000 $4,090,000 $4,090,000 _

East Palo Alto Groundwater Supply $1 506 050 $1,506,050 $1,506,050

2020 Turf Replacement $781.563 $781,563 $7141,563

Administration 51,13513,745 51 .855.745 $1,1158.745

Round 4 Sub total $41,099,180 $8,531563 $9,156,050 $7,456,037 $14,095,185 $1,858,745 $6,377,613 50 526,444,351 $6 908 119 $3,858,745

Subregion/FA totals

Bay Area Subregional

Allocation Targets

25.021% 21.503% 28.646% _ 24.830%

Baseline Sub-Regional Break-down Functional Area Breakdown

Recommended Funding

amount North West East South Admin WS/WQ WW/RW FC/SW Hab/WShd Planning/Adm

Round 1 $30,093,592 $6,864,351 $5,817,564 $8,616,231 $6,725,625 $2,069,821

Round 2 $20,430,000 $5,619,377 $4,414,300 $6,506,011 $2,990,312 $900,000

Round 3 $32,178,423 $8,385,452 $6,975,400 $9,204,200 $5,632,400 $1,980,971

Round 4 $41,099,180 $8,531,563 $9,156,050 $7,456,037 $14,096,785 $1,858,745 $6,377,613 $0 $26,444,351 $6,908,119 $1,858,745

Totals $123,801,195 $29,400,743 $26,363,314 $31,782,479 $29,445,122

Actual Subregional 23.748% 21.295% 25.672% 23.784%

Without Anderson Dam

Recommended Funding


Round 1 $30,093,592 $6,864,351 $5,817,564 $8,616,231 $6,725,625 $2,069,821

Round 2 $20,430,000 $5,619,377 $4,414,300 $6,506,011 $2,990,312 $900,000

Round 3 $32,178,423 $8,385,452 $6,975,400 $9,204,200 $5,632,400 $1,980,971

Round 4 $37,009,180 $8,531,563 $9,156,050 $7,456,037 $10,006,785 $1,858,745 $2,287,613 $0 $26,444,351 $6,908,119 $1,858,745

Totals $119,711,195 $29,400,743 $26,363,314 $31,782,479 $25,355,122

Subregional percent 24.560% 22.022% 26.549% 21.180%

Option 1: Full Reallocation to

San Francisquito Creek project

Recommended Funding

amount North West East South Admin WS/WQ WW/RW FC/SW Hab/W5hd Planning/Adm

Round 1 $30,093,592 $6,864,351 $5,817,564 $8,616,231 $6,725,625 $2,069,821

Round 2 $20,430,000 $5,619,377 $4,414,300 $6,506,011 $2,990,312 $900,000

Round 3 $32,178,423 $8,385,452 $6,975,400 $9,204,200 $5,632,400 $1,980,971

Round 4 $41,099,180 $8,531,563 $9,156,050 $7,456,037 $14,096,785 $1,858,745 $2,287,613 $0 $30,534,351 $6,908,119 $1,858,745

Totals $123,801,195 $29,400,743 $26,363,314 $31,782,479 $29,445,122 $6,809,537

Subregional percent 23.748% 21295% 25.672% 23.784% 1.85% 0.00% 24.66% 5.58% 1.50%

Option 2: Full Reallocation to

East Palo Alto project

Recommended Funding


Round 1 $30,093,592 56,864,351 $5,817,564 $8,616,231 $6,725,625 $2,069,1321

Round 2 $20,430,000 $5,619,377 $4,414,300 $6,506,011 $2,990,312 $900,000

Round 3 $32,178,423 $8,385,452 $6,975,400 $9,204,200 $5,632,400 $1,980,971

Round 4 $41,099,180 $8,531,563 $13,246,050 $7,456,037 $10,006,785 $1,858,745 $6,377,613 SO 526,444,351 $6,908,119 $1,858,745

Totals $123,801,195 $29,400,743 $30,453,314 $31,782,479 $25,355,122

Subregional percent 23.748% 24.599% 25.672% 20.481% 5.151% 0.000% 21.360% 5.580% 1.501%

2/24/17

Option 3: SIM to East Palo Alto Project, $2.94M to San

Francisquito Creek, 5150K to San Mateo RC)

Recommended Funding amount North West East South Admin WS/WQ WW/RW FC/SW Hab/W5hd Planning/Adm

Round 1 $30,093,592 $6,864,351 $5,817,564 $8,616,231 $6,725,625 $2,069,821 Round 2 $20,430,000 $5,619,377 $4,414,300 $6,506,011 $2,990,312 $900,000 Round 3 $32,178,423 $8,385,452 $6,975,400 $9,204,200 $5,632,400 $1,980,971 Round 4 $41,099,180 $8,531,563 $10,306,050 $7,456,037 $12,946,785 $1,858,745 $3,287,613 $0 $29,534,351 $6,908,119 $1,858,745

Totals $123,1301,195 $29,400,743 $27,513,314 $31,782,479 $28,295,122 $6,809,537 Subregional percent 23.748% 22.224% 2.5.672% 22.855% 5.500% 2.656% 0.000% 23.856% 5.580% 1.501%

2/24/17

Association of Bay Area GovernmentsProposition 84

Integrated Regional Water Management2015 Implementation Grant Reallocation Proposal

Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit Project Reallocation:Upon review of recent seismic studies completed for Anderson Dam, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) has determined that the Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit Project (ADSRP) will need to be re-designed and, as a result, cannot utilize the $4.09M in Proposition 84 grant funding. SCVWD proposes that the grant funding be reallocated to the San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection and Ecosystem Restoration Project (SF Creek Project).

SCVWD considered other SCVWD projects with similar benefits to the ADSRP, particularly water supply benefits, but none of the projects are ready for implementation. Then, SCVWD considered other projects with benefits to the South Bay region. One of the important considerations for choosing the ADSRP for the grant application was that it would ensure the Bay Area IRWM Coordinating Committee’s agreements regarding the geographic distribution of funding. In reallocating the funds to the SF Creek Project, we are still able to ensure the geographic distribution of funding, while at the same time providing a benefit to the West region.

Justification for Reallocation to SF Creek Project:After the Prop 84 grant funds of approximately $1.04M were awarded to the SF Creek Project, project costs escalated because an additional year of construction was added to the schedule. This resulted from increased restrictions by the environmental permitting agencies upon the discovery of nesting sites of Ridgeway Rails, an endangered species. To award the construction contract, funds had to be shifted from the upstream project. Since construction began, unanticipated costs have arisen that could potentially result in approximately $4.4M in additional project costs. The project only has a 10% contingency of $2.6M. Receiving the $4.09M in reallocated grant funding could cover the unanticipated costs, while maintaining the contingency funding beyond year one of the project. Should any funds remain upon construction, they would be returned to the upstream project, which currently has a funding shortfall.

San Francisquito Creek Flood Protection and Ecosystem Restoration Project

Project Proponent: State Coastal Conservancy

Project Abstract: The project goals are to protect against concur-rent 100-year riverine floods, 100-year high-tides, and sea-level rise while restoring 18 acres of tidal marsh.

East Palo Alto homes flooded in 1998.

Page 1 of 4

Attachment 2 – Project Justification

Bay Area Regional Climate Change Preparedness Program Att. 2-87 2015 IRWM Implementation Grant Application

B. Project Map

Project Background: SF Creek is the dividing line between Santa Clara and San Mateo counties. It is bordered by three cities—Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Historically there have been multiple flood events along SF Creek, with significant flooding and damages occuring in 1955, 1958, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1995, 1998, and most recently in 2012. The flood that created the call to action occurred February 3, 1998. This was the largest flood event in recorded history and more than 1,700 neighboring homes and businesses were impacted, resulting in $28M in damages. Following years of effort to address environmental issues and storm events, five local agencies—the SCVWD, the San Mateo County Flood Control District, and the cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park—joined together to create a new regional government agency, the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority.

Project Benefits and Goals: The project will increase streamflow capacity in San Francisquito Creek from the downstream face of East Bayshore Road to San Francisco Bay, preventing the levees from overtopping during a 100-year riverine flood, coincident with a 100-year high tide event. Increasing the creek’s flow capacity will be achieved by widening the creek channel within the reach to convey peak flows, removing abandoned PG&E pipelines, and configuring flood walls in the upper part of the reach for consistency with the structure of Caltrans’ enlargement of the Highway 101/East Bayshore Road Bridge over San Francisquito Creek (a separate project also underway). The project will also provide the capacity needed for future upstream flood protection, and create increased tidal marshland habitat (within the new channel) at appropriate elevations for intertidal wetland plant and animal species. In fact, the project is expected to create approximately 14.4 acres of new or improved Mid-Marsh habitat, and an estimated 4.0 acres of new or improved Low-Marsh habitat. To accomplish this, approximately 7 acres of the City of Palo Alto’s Golf Course were acquired to expand the width of the channel.

Disadvantaged Community (DAC) Benefit:The SF Creek Project will remove fluvial flooding risks from San Francisquito Creek for approximately 1,300 properties, 1,100 of which are primary residences in East Palo Alto, with 341 of these within the DAC. Of all of the areas within the fluvial floodplain of San Francisquito Creek, the DAC area of East Palo Alto to be protected by this project is at the highest risk of loss of human life resulting from overtopping or levee failure.

Page 2 of 4

SF Creek Project Status: The SF Creek Project was ranked 4th of the 45 projects considered for the 2015 Implementation grant application. The project is fully permitted. The construction contract has been awarded and construction is scheduled for completion by December 2018.

Geographic Distribution of Funding:At the June 23, 2008 meeting of the SF Bay Area IRWMP Coordinating Committee (CC), the Planning and Process Subcommittee (PnP) was asked to create a framework for comparing and contrasting options for regional and sub-regional approaches for consideration by the CC. The decision to begin the analysis of sub-regional approaches at this time was made in response to feedback received from Department of Water Resources (DWR) staff indicating their appreciation for the Bay Area’s interest in developing such an approach and conveying conceptual approval for a project selection process that allocates funding for regional projects as well as creates a framework for allocating funds to projects on a sub-regional basis within the Bay Area region.

Below is the agreed upon geographic distribution of funding.

To date, there have been four rounds of Proposition 84 Grant Funding. The total combined allocation for the South, with ADSRP included, is 23%. If ADSRP funds are not reallocated to the South, the percentage for Round 4 will drop to 24%, while the total combined allocation will drop to 20%. Whereas, the West has come in on or above target every year.

Unique Geographic Distribution of SF Creek Project:While the SF Creek Project does provide benefits to the South Bay subregion and is counted towards the South’s allocation, in actuality, it greatly benefits the West. In fact, the City of East Palo Alto, a DAC, has 85% of the residential homes at risk of flooding, but is only contributing 3% toward project costs.

This DAC experienced flooding as recently as December 2012, when flood waters once again broke out of San Francisquito Creek and flowed into the homes of East Palo Alto. Once this project is completed, they will be protected from fluvial flooding up to the 100-year flood event, which has a 1% chance of occurring any given year.

Page 3 of 4

Without the SF Creek Project

Imminent Threat of FloodingAs previously referenced, SF Creek experienced significant flooding and damages in 1955, 1958, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1995, 1998, and most recently in 2012.

In 2017, boils in the levee resulted in seepage into the Palo Alto Golf Course. While crews were able to contain the water by constructing sandbag chimneys, the risk of flooding and levee failure remains.

Levee failure poses a threat to lives. Not only for the residents living near or along the creek, but for commuters as well. Highway 101 is a major transportation route in the Bay Area and is at risk of flooding without this project.

Residential and Commercial DamagesIn 2011, the total residential damages, including damages to structures and content, was estimated to be$18,655,865, $24,255,278, and $28,925,879 for the 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events, respectively.

The total commercial damages, including damages to structures and content, were estimated to be $1,216,000, $2,128,000, and $2,736,000 for the 25-year, 50-year, and 100-year flood events, respectively.

Data related to cleanup and debris removal costs are not available, and have therefore been excluded from this analysis.

Without the Additional Funding

Potential Funding ShortfallPrior to awarding the construction contract, the SFCJPA and its member agencies faced a funding shortfall that had the potential to halt the project entirely. While the threat of flooding is real and the need is there, the funding was not.

After shifting funds to the project once before, the SCVWD Board of Directors set a cap on the Safe, Clean Water and Natural Flood Protection Program (Measure B) to be allocated to the SF Creek Project (SF Bay to Highway 101) in order to preserve funds for the upstream portion of the project that was promised to the Santa Clara County taxpayers. This funding includes the City of Palo Alto’s contribution to the project.

As previously mentioned, 85% of the residential properties protected by the project are within the City of East Palo Alto, yet combined, the West is only contributing 10% toward project costs. Of that amount, 34% was shifted from upstream funds.

The likelihood that the SFCJPA member agencies would be able to identify new funding for this project is low and shifting and additional funds from the upstream project could severely impact the upstream project’s feasibility, leaving more homes and businesses at risk of flooding.

With approximately $4.4M in unanticipated project costs identified since construction began in June 2016 that could potentially impact the budget and only a 10% contingency of $2.6M, this project is at risk of going over budget. This could result in serious project delays and additional costs, as well as prolonging the risk of flooding, threatening lives, and risking damages to homes and businesses.

Receiving the $4.09M in reallocated grant funding could cover the unanticipated costs, while maintaining the contingency funding beyond year one of the project. Should any funds remain upon completion of construction, they would be returned to the upstream project.

Page 4 of 4

1

February 15. 2017

Association of Bay Area Governments Proposition 84 Integrated Regional Water Management 2015 Implementation Grant Reallocation Proposal

Coastal San Mateo County Drought Relief Phase II Program Project Proponent: San Mateo County Resource Conservation District Project Abstract: The project goals are to replace approximately 1,550 feet of drinking water pipeline to reduce leaks and failures at two sites, and construct/repair three ponds and associated irrigation infrastructure improvements. This work will result in an estimated 13 acre feet of water conservation per year and 28 to 48 acre feet of increased water storage. Background: Upon review of recent seismic studies completed for Anderson Dam, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) has determined that the Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit Project (ADSRP) will need to be re-designed and, as a result, cannot utilize the $4.09M in Proposition 84 Grant funds. The San Mateo County RCD (RCD) is requesting a range of funds ($150K to $800K) of the now available $4.09M to cover anticipated construction/implementation funding shortfalls. Scalable Funding Scenarios:

A. $150K would achieve minimum water storage benefits of 28 acre feet though construction of: a. 10 AF pond at Carpy Ranch, Pescadero Watershed b. 18 AF pond at Moty Ranch, San Gregorio Watershed

B. $300K would achieve an additional 5 acre feet of water storage though construction of a. 15 AF pond at Carpy Ranch, Pescadero Watershed b. 18 AF pond at Moty Ranch, San Gregorio Watershed

C. $800 would achieve an additional 15 acre feet of water though construction of three ponds. a. 15 AF pond at Carpy Ranch, Pescadero Watershed b. 18 AF pond at Moty Ranch, San Gregorio Watershed c. 10 AF pond at Johnston Ranch, Pilarcitos Watershed

Substantiation of Additional Need for Pond Construction: Under Round 4 we proposed, for water storage and improved irrigation conservation, the following three ponds:

1. A new pond at Carpy Ranch within the Pescadero Watershed that would provide 10-15 acre feet of additional storage for irrigation use during drought years;

2. A new pond at Moty Ranch within the San Gregorio Watershed that would provide 18 acre feet of additional storage for irrigation use during drought years;

2

3. Restore and expand an existing storage pond that would provide approximately 10 acre feet of additional storage for irrigation use during drought years

Based on finished construction costs for the Repetto Pond, completed in 2016 under IRWM Grant Drought Round (Round 3) that now provides 19 acre feet of additional reservoir space for irrigation needs, we now know that our engineer’s cost estimates submitted with our grant application in August 2015 for Round 4 were significantly below actual costs for these proposed ponds under Round 4 with their construction to occur in 2017, 2018 and 2019.

The following tables illustrate the difference between our estimate in June 2014 for the Repetto Pond and its actual cost of construction in 2016. The ponds under Round 4 will be constructed using similar techniques. The costs of each cubic yard of soil is a relative constant that is multiplied by the number of cubic yards of soil that need to be moved or processed. Engineers have used the costs associated with the Repetto pond project to refine costs for the ponds under Round 4. We have used that variable for developing a cost comparison between our application estimates in 2015 and the build out of the three ponds described above. This resulted in a significant adjustment in our engineer’s construction estimate and our need for additional funds.

Drought Round 3 Reference Project: Repetto Project Cost Comparison

Project Element Name and description

2014 Grant Application Estimate

Actual costs constructed in 2015,

2016 Total Overages for Drought Round 3

San Gregorio Watershed, Repetto Ranch Phase I: Irrigation Infrastructure $ 100,000 $ 100,000 N/A San Gregorio Watershed, Repetto Ranch Phase II: ~19 Acre Foot Pond $ 300,000 $ 471,368 $ 171,368 Totals $ 400,000 $ 571,368 $ 171,368.00

Drought Round 4

Project Element Name and description

2015 Estimate at time of

Grant Application

Estimate for Maximum Pond Size

2017

Option A Shortfall for

Drought Round 4

Option B Shortfall

for Drought Round 4

Option C Shortfall

for Drought Round 4

San Gregorio: Moty Ranch: ~19 Acre Feet

$300,000 $600,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000

Pescadero Watershed: Carpy Ranch: ~ 15 Acre Feet

$300,000 $550,000 $100,000 $250,000 $250,000

Pilarcitos Watershed: Johnston Ranch: ~ 10 Acre Feet

$300,000 $550,000 $0 $0 $250,000

Totals $900,000 $1,700,000 $150,000 $300,000 $800,000

3

Project 5 – Costal San Mateo County Drought Relief Phase II Revised Project Budget

Funding Scenarios

(a) (a) (b) (c) (d)

Secured Grant

Amount

Reallocation Request

Cost Share: Non-State

Fund Source

(Funding Match)

Cost Share: Other State Fund Source (Additional

Cost Share)*

Total Cost w/o

Request

Total Cost w/Request

A Grand Total $1,400,000 $150,000 $0 $549,573 $1,949,573 $2,099,573

B Grand Total $1,400,000 $300,000 $0 $549,573 $1,949,573 $2,249,573

C Grand Total $1,400,000 $800,000 $0 $549,573 $1,949,573 $2,749,573

*Sources of funding: Cuesta La Honda Guild, Peninsula Open Space Trust, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Agricultural Landowners, Trout Unlimited via State Coastal Conservancy

Project Needs and Goals: The Project includes infrastructure and water use and management improvements that will result in reduced water demand by addressing water use efficiency, water supply storage, and water management during drought years. This Project is critical to the region’s ability to improve local water supply reliability, deliver more reliable drinking water, and protect habitat for threatened and endangered steelhead trout and coho salmon. Community water suppliers in this area of the state do not have the user fee base needed to finance this suite of projects, and the agricultural community consists of family farms that cannot afford to develop these projects without funding and technical assistance. To date, planning, design, and implementation efforts have been largely funded by grants or through support from the County of San Mateo. Project Status and Benefits: Pond designs are about 35% complete at the Carpy and Moty Ranch sites, while designs are still in the concept level at Johnston Ranch. Without the additional funds, we still would be able to construct two ponds at Carpy and Moty Ranches, however, the reconstruction of the Johnston Ranch in-stream reservoir would not be possible. With the current funding the two ponds are estimated to deliver 2 acre feet shy of the minimum 28 acre feet of water storage and there would be no benefit provided under this grant within the Pilarcitos Watershed. If $150K is awarded, the Carpy Ranch and Moty Projects can deliver the minimum 28 acre feet of water storage, but only in two of the three Watersheds. If $300K is awarded the Carpy and Moty projects can deliver approximately 33 acre feet of water storage. If $800,000 is awarded all three projects can be completed and deliver 43 acre feet of water storage.

CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO Public Works Department - Engineering Division 1960 Tate Street, East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Tel. No. 650.853.3189, Fax. No. 650.853.3179

Page 1 of 8

February 15, 2017 Mr. Steven Ritchie, Chair Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordination Committee 525 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Subject: Request for Allocation of Additional Funds

2015 Proposition 84 IRWM Implementation Grant (Round 4) Project 4, East Palo Alto Groundwater Supply Project

Dear Mr. Ritchie, The City of East Palo Alto (City) is currently experiencing a City-wide water supply shortage of approximately 1,200 acre feet per year (AFY) that has resulted in a development moratorium initiated in July 2016 until additional water supplies could be brought on line. The City has been working diligently to implement identified solutions such as the design and installation of new wells and water treatment systems as well as exploring potential permanent water allocation transfers from other water service providers. The City projects an additional need of 1,662 AFY, or approximately up to 1.5 million gallons per day (mgd) by 2040. Under the subject grant the City was awarded $1,506,050 for development of a new treatment system for the existing Gloria Way Well, and planning and design for a new well, identified as Pad D Well. The Gloria Way Well will increase water supply by 225 AFY (200,000 gallons per day) to disadvantaged communities (DACs) in the City. This Project also addresses the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Human Right to Water Policy. The City has worked to expedite its identified groundwater development projects. The Gloria Way Well and Treatment System contract received bids on January 12, 2017. The lowest responsible bid was $1 million ($1.0M) over the Engineer’s Estimate, and $1.0M over the City’s funding for this work. We believe the significant overage is due largely to the busy construction market with higher demand increasing construction costs throughout the Bay Area. The City is obliged to have adequate funds allocated within 60 days of receipt of a bid in order to award a contract. We currently have 48 days remaining within which to secure funding to cover the contract award shortfall and proceed with this urgently needed construction on the Gloria Way Well. Should we secure the required funding within these 48 days, this construction is scheduled to be complete and on line by December 2017.

Additionally, the City has determined through its hydrological analysis, that construction of a

of 8

new well and treatment system at the Pad D site, would yield an additional 670 AFY (600,000 gallons per day), relieving not only the current supply shortage, but would provide additional reliable water supply to allow the City to lift the development moratorium and continue with its economic development plans. Also funded by the subject grant, but for design only, we are currently at 60% design documents, with 100% documents scheduled by June 2017. Our Engineer’s estimate for full construction and implementation of this new well and treatment system is $3,276,000 for which the City has no identified funding source. Should funds become available, our projected schedule shows that we could have this well on line by June of 2018. To fund the Gloria Way Well Treatment System Project and the Pad D New Well Project, the City will need over $4 million of additional funds to complete the construction of the two projects. Receiving the $4.09M in reallocated grant funding could allow these two projects to be constructed, relieve the City from its water shortage crises, and lift the development moratorium. Justification for Reallocation of additional funds East Palo Alto Groundwater Supply Project The Development and Implementation of Groundwater Supply Projects in East Palo Alto was ranked 1st of the 45 projects considered for the 2015 Proposition 84, IRWM Implementation grant application. The project is fully permitted and scheduled for completion in late 2017. On July 19, 2016, the City Council approved a resolution adopting an emergency ordinance prohibiting new or expanded water service connections within the service territory of the city’s water system, until additional water supplies can be secured. The development moratorium impacts low-income and affordable housing, both of which are facing critical shortages as well in the City and Bay Area at large. The City is one of the few remaining on the peninsula that has available vacant land for growth, and the desire to grow in an equitable manner that benefits the community. The City, although a member of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), currently receives less water per capita than most BAWSCA members. At present, the City is allocated 36.94 AFY per capita, which is 66% of the average 56 AFY per capita for the other BAWSCA members. In 2013, the City’s gross per capita water consumption was 56.9 gpcd, compared to an average of 124.3 gpcd for the other BAWSCA Members. On a per capita basis East Palo Alto uses 46% less water than the average BAWSCA member. The City is the smallest, newest, poorest, most diverse city on the peninsula. Controlled for size, East Palo Alto is a leader in providing affordable housing. Nearly 40% of the total housing in the City is affordable, yet has 22% of the emergency shelter beds in San Mateo County, despite having only 3.9% of the population. The City has 0.23 jobs per employed resident – the lowest jobs per employed resident ratio in the core Bay Area (Santa

of 8

Clara, San Mateo, Alameda, and San Francisco counties). Surrounding jurisdictions have 2-3 jobs per employed resident. Affordable and market-rate housing in the City subsidize jobs in other Bay Area cities. City Water Supply Challenges

All the water in the City’s water system is supplied by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) water system. There are two small water mutual companies that operate groundwater wells collectively. The City has an Interim Supply Guarantee (ISG) from SFPUC of 1.963 mgd, or approximately 2,199 acre feet a year (AFY.) However, the City has been using on average approximately 95% of its ISG for the last 14 years, and in some years (2006, 2007, 2012) exceeded its ISG. The graph below displays the percentage of the Normal Year ISG that has been purchased by East Palo Alto between 2001 and 2015 that serve a few hundred properties in East Palo Alto. The SFPUC system serves mainly the City and County of San Francisco and 26 members—East Palo Alto included—of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). In 2009, BAWSC members signed a Water Supply Agreement and Contract with the SFPUC that expires in 2034. This Contract guarantees supply of 184 million gallons a day (mgd) shared among BWASCA members.

East Palo Alto Existing and Future Water Demand On October 4, 2016, the City adopted its General Plan update. The growth projections are described in the table on the next page. This anticipated growth would represent $5.7 million in additional revenue for the City. The City conducted a Water Supply Assessment for the General Plan Update. The Water Supply Assessment indicated a need, during a Normal Water Year, for approximately 1,662 additional AFY, or approximately up to 1.5 mgd by 2040. Table 2: General Plan Growth Projections

96% 96% 105% 96% 96% 104% 104% 98% 88% 90% 95% 105%

75% 80%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Percent of Normal Year ISG Purchased by East Palo Alto

of 8

Net New Units

Net Retail Sq. Ft.

Net Office Sq. Ft

Net Industrial Sq. Ft.

Ravenswood/4 Corners Area 835 112,400 1,235,853 267,987 Westside 900 45,000 2nd Units on single-family parcels 119 All other Areas Citywide 665 176,006 704,000

Total 2,519 333,406 1,939,853 267,987 The current moratorium has delayed four projects with a construction value of $600 million and anticipated water demand of 350,000 gallons per day, or 400 AFY. Those four projects are described below. The Sobrato Project

A 200,000 square foot office project at 2111 University Avenue. This project proposes an office project at a prominent location at University Avenue and Donohoe Street. The project could create between 600 to 800 new jobs.

The 2020 Bay Rd. Project

A 1.4 million square feet office project at 2020 Bay Road This project could provide up to 4,200 to 5,000 new jobs, and increase the commercial office square footage in the City by 215%.

The Primary School Project A new tuition-free private school for approximately 500 City and Belle Haven students. The Primary School will provide integrated health care, education and family support to improve the health and educational outcomes for children. The project also includes a gymnasium that is proposed to be available for use by the community.

965 Weeks Street A City-sponsored, affordable Housing project with 100 to 120 potential units on a 2.6 acre City/Successor Housing Agency owned site.

The City typically has among the highest unemployment rates in the Bay Area. The two office projects could collectively generate over 5,000 new jobs, and the projects might generate between $1.5 to $2.5 million in new property tax for the City, which currently receives about $10.5 million in property tax. In addition, there are many projects that have not submitted applications due to the development moratorium. Staff estimated the water demand for these projects to potentially be 400 AFY. Thus, the lack of water is severely hampering the City’s ability to improve its current jobs housing imbalance, attract development that will generate revenue to improve the financial stability of the City, provide significant jobs, improve the City’s current level of services to its residents, and continue its leadership role in providing affordable housing. Capital Projects

of 8

As part of the adopted capital improvement program, the City is currently working on two capital projects involving groundwater wells to supplement the SFPUC water allocation: Gloria Way Well; and Pad D Well. Below is a summary of the status of each of these projects. 1. Gloria Way Well & Treatment System Description: This is a critical project intended to increase the City’s water supply. The Gloria Way Well is located at the intersection of Gloria Way and Bay Road in East Palo Alto. The well was constructed in 1979 by the County of San Mateo Department of Public Works. The well, which was estimated to produce about 300 gallons per minute (“gpm”), was used for a short time in the early 1980’s as a supplemental potable supply source. However, the water even though it was potable, had elevated levels of total dissolved solids (“TDS”), iron, and manganese. The City stopped using the well in response to customer complaints, citing odor and other aesthetic issues. Currently, groundwater produced at the well is used only for construction and dust control. Gloria Bay Well is a critical component of our water supply and diversification strategy and when brought back on line as a potable water source will provide 225 AFY.

Budget Issues: The engineer’s estimate for total construction was $2,290,000. On January 12, 2017, three sealed bids were received. The lowest responsive and responsible bidder submitted a bid in the amount of $3,053,208.00. The City has currently identified funds totaling $2,001,050 for this construction (shown in the table below) which still leaves a shortfall of $1,052,158. Without immediate securing of $1,052,158 in additional funds, the City will be obliged to forego the construction contract award for this well that would significantly help relieve the current water supply shortages.

Budget Summary: Available Construction Funds $ 801,050 IRWM Prop 84

$ 500,000 USEPA $ 700,000 CDBGTotal Available Funds $ 2,001,050 Lowest Construction Bid $ 3,053,208Construction Funding Shortfall $ 1,052,158

Schedule Summary: 2016 2017Gloria Bay Well Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Construction

Permitting

2. Pad D Well

of 8

Description: This is a critical project intended to increase the City’s water supply. In 2014, EKI was retained to install a test well at the Pad D site. The test well geophysical and pumping data indicate that the Pad D site is underlain by aquifers that would be capable of providing a properly designed production well with instantaneous yields on the order of 350 to 500 gpm, with an anticipated 670 AFY yield.

Status Update: The City received the 60% design package the first week of October 2016. These documents

are currently in review with various permitting agencies and City Staff. An EIR (Environmental Impact Report) will be prepared for the project. The Notice of

Preparation (NOP) was issued September 15 and the comment period closed on October 17, 2016. An EIR Scoping Meeting was held on October 6, 2016. The City is currently responding to seven comments received.

The 100% design and CEQA process is anticipated to be complete in mid-2017. Assuming the CEQA process goes forward without significant concerns or delays, and funding sources secured, the well construction would commence in September 2017, with all the required permits for bringing the well on line obtained by June 2018.

Budget Issues: The engineer’s estimate for total construction is $3,276,000. The City received $555,000 from IRWM Prop 84 for the design. There is no available funding at this time for construction.

Budget Summary: Design Funds $ 555,000 IRWM Prop 84 Design Contract Cost $ 564,700 EKIDesign Shortfall $ 9,700Engineer’s Construction Estimate $3,276,000Construction Funds Identified $ 0Funding Shortfall $ 3,285,700

Schedule Summary: 2016 2017 2018 Pad D Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Design & Environmental

Construction

Permitting

of 8

We appreciate the Bay Area IRWM Coordination and Selection Committees’ time and careful review of the City’s immediate and extreme need for additional water sources. We know that there are other worthy projects being considered, but hope that the Committees will see our groundwater supply work as vital for the region, and approve our request for the full $4.09M being reallocated from the Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit Project . This would not only ensure that the City can immediately proceed with the Gloria Way Well and Treatment System construction, but move ahead as quickly as possible with full implementation of the Pad D Well and Treatment System under our current IRWM Grant. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information regarding this request. Sincerely, Kamal Fallaha Kamal Fallaha, P.E. City of East Palo Alto Public Works Director 650-853-3117 Enclosure: Attachment 1: Chronology of Water Strategy Activities since adoption of Moratorium on July 19, 2016 Cc: Rebecca Darr, ABAG/SF EstuaryPartnership, IRWM Grant Project Manager Carlos Martinez, City Manager Sean Charpentier, Assistant City Manager File

of 8

ATTACHMENT 1

Chronology of Water Strategy Activities since adoption of Moratorium on July 19, 2016 1. July 19, 2016, the City Adopted a Water Moratorium for New Development 2. July 19, 2016, the City adopted a Water Supply Agreement with three large projects. 3. July 26, 2016, the City Council approved a $50,000 contract with EKI to provide

professional assistance with the implementation of the water moratorium and the water transfer.

4. August 2, 2016, the City of Mountain View sent a letter to the City of East Palo Alto indicating that it was interested in transferring 0.5 mgd of water.

5. August 5, 2016 City staff gave a tour of East Palo Alto to members of the SFPUC. 6. August 8, 2016, City Staff met with the SFPUC, BAWSCA, and City of Mountain View

staff to discuss the water shortfall and potential solutions. 7. August 9, 2016, City staff spoke in support of prioritizing solutions to East Palo Alto’s

water shortfall at the SFPUC Commission Meeting. The SFPUC make prioritizing solutions to East Palo Alto’s predicament its number two priority.

8. August 29, 2016- City staff met with EKI to discuss water transfer options. 9. September 6, 2016, East Palo Alto City Council appointed Mayor Rutherford and

Councilmember Gauthier to a City Council subcommittee for water supply issues to provide guidance to staff.

10. September 7, 2016, - City staff meet with EKI to discuss water transfer options. 11. September 14, 2016, City staff and EKI brief City Council Subcommittee on water issues 12. September 15, 2016- Notice of Preparation for Pad D groundwater well was released. 13. September 20, 2016, City staff authorized Freyer and Laureta to augment City staff

resources on groundwater projects. 14. September 21, 2016, City received 100% Design for Gloria Way Well. 15. October 4, 2106 City Council approved PSE for Gloria Way Well and authorized City staff

to advertise for construction bids. 16. October 4, 2016, City Council authorized City Manager to enter into grant agreement for

$1.5m IRWM grant for capital water projects. 17. First week of October, East Palo Alto City staff met with Mountain View staff to discuss a

potential transfer. 18. October 6, 2016- Notice Of Preparation (NOP) scoping meeting for Pad D groundwater

well. 19. October 6, 2016- City received 60% design for Pad D groundwater well.

Appendix G-1

Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP by the Coordinating Committee on April 25, 2016

____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan G-1-1 Appendix G-1: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on April 25, 2016

Appendix G-1: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan

The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP:

• City of San Pablo Wildcat Creek Restoration Plan The following plans are under development and the Coordinating Committee anticipates accepting them into the BAIRWMP upon completion:

• Contra Costa Watersheds Storm Water Resource Plan • Santa Clara Basin Storm Water Resource Plan

____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan G-1-2 Appendix G-1: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan on April 25, 2016

Appendix G-2

Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the 2013 Bay Area IRWMP – Under Review ____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-2- 1 Appendix G-2: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan – Under Review

Appendix G-2: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan – Under Review

The California State Water Resources Control Board adopted the Final Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines on December 15, 2015, which established the process and criteria for awarding grants for multi-benefit storm water management projects, through the development of a Storm Water Resource Plan. To be eligible for a Proposition 1 Storm Water Grant, each Bay Area applicant must first develop and submit their Storm Water Resource Plan, or functionally equivalent plan, to the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP) Coordinating Committee for incorporation into the BAIRWMP. The goals of the Storm Water Resource Plans are consistent with those of the BAIRWMP. As such, the Bay Area Coordinating Committee is in support of including Storm Water Resource Plans in the BAIRWMP, when the plans are complete. The Storm Water Resource Plan listed below aligns with BAIRWMP priorities and protects Bay Area watersheds, and is hereby added to the 2013 BAIRWMP:

• San Mateo County Stormwater Resource Plan

____________________________________________________________________________________ 2013 Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Appendix G-2- 2 Appendix G-2: Storm Water Resource Plans Added to the Plan – Under Review

Ann Moller Caen C moir.sicirier

Francesca Vietar Commissioner

Vince Courtney

Lermoissioner

Harlan L Kelly, Jr. Genet .11 Manage,

San Francisco Water Sewc7, 7 Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Wastewater Enterprise

525 Golden Gate Ave., 13th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

T 415.554.3155

F 415.554.3161

'my 415.554.3488

February 15, 2017

Steven R. Ritchie, Chairman Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Coordinating Committee

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Request to Incorporate the SFPUC's Functionally Equivalent Stormwater Resource

Plan into the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (BAIRWMP)

Dear Mr. Ritchie,

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) requests that the Coordinating Committee approve incorporation of the SFPUC's Functionally Equivalent Stormwater Management Plan into the Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan.

Water Code sections 10560 et seq. (as amended by Senate Bill 985, Stats. 2014, Ch. 555, § 5). 1 Water Code section 10563, subdivision (c)(1), requires a Storm Water Resource Plan (SWRP) as a condition of receiving funds for storm water and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014. Once completed, the SWRP must be submitted to the applicable regional water management group for incorporation into the regional water management plan.

SFPUC's functionally equivalent plan summarizes a collection of our existing planning documents. These planning documents include a Program Management Plan (PMP), Urban Watershed Assessment (UWA) Reports, Green Infrastructure Early Implementation Project Planning Reports, a Triple Bottom Line Methodology Report, and an Urban Water Management Plan. Collectively these documents meet all of the requirements of Water Code section 10560 et Seq., as listed in the Self-Certification Checklist included as Appendix B of the SWRP.

If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact Alexandra Gunnell at [email protected] or at 415-551-4505.

Edwin M. Lee rvI:Iyar

Anson Moran President

Ike Kwon Vice President

Sincerely,

111

Tommy T. Moala, Assistant General Manager, Wastewater Enterprise

Cc: Karen Kubick, Director, Sewer System Improvement Program (SSIP) Kathy How, Assistant General Manager, Infrastructure Eric Sandler, Chief Financial Officer, Assistant General Manager, Business Services

Enc: SFPUC Functionally Equivalent Stormwater Plan, February 2017

BAIRWMP Coordinating Committee Schedule of Future CC Meetings

Date Location

March 27, 2017 StopWaste

April 24, 2017 State Coastal Conservancy

May 22, 2017 Santa Clara Valley Water District

June 26, 2017 ABAG (SF office)

July 24, 2017 ??

sf bay area irwmp coordinating committee meeting summary location: san...

Documents