Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-2021 - Agenda Pkg - CC Regular MeetingTuesday, November 9, 2021 6:00 PM City of Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 City Council Mayor Justin Massey Mayor Pro Tem Michael Detoy Councilmembers Stacey Armato Mary Campbell Raymond Jackson Regular Meeting Agenda Face masks required for all in-person attendance Closed Session - Canceled Open Session - 6:00 P.M. Duly Posted on November 5, 2021 at 4:25 p.m. by S.M. Executive Team Angela Crespi, Deputy City Manager Viki Copeland, Finance Director Susan Morrow, Interim City Clerk Paul LeBaron, Chief of Police Joe SanClemente, Public Works Director Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Vanessa Godinez, Human Resources Manager Lisa Nichols, Interim Community Resources Manager City Treasurer Karen Nowicki City Attorney Michael Jenkins Suja Lowenthal, City Manager PLEASE NOTE: This is a full Packet including all pages and sub-pages, of all staff-reports and other materials of each agenda item as if physically stacked together and represents the complete agenda Packet as a single PDF file as of the date and time the agenda was initially posted (unless otherwise indicated here). It is meant to be an aid, but not intended as a replacement for the 'Living' agenda. This full Packet does not contain additions, modifications, or supplementals that have been added after the first posting of the 'Living' agenda unless indicated here. To prevent time downloading, and re-downloading, you might download this single PDF to your computer to have available for multiple reference, or to re-reference, to avoid the necessity of needing to be connected to the Internet or being held up by a slow-connection or slow server. For a particular item(s), you may desire to ensure that you are viewing all additions, modifications, or supplementals posted after the original agenda packet's posting by utilizing the link to the 'Living' agenda as displayed on the city's website Agenda/Minutes page which for this agenda is: 11-09-21 Regular Meeting Agenda Note again, that the agenda appearing below the following items' page number table may have changed and represents the page numbers to the agenda and materials contained in this full agenda packet only. The agenda-items page number table below provides the starting page of each item in this full contiguous packet PDF file. To better utilize these page numbers, note that the Adobe Acrobat reader has a feature to display page thumb-nails down the left edge of your screen. With the page-thumbnails displayed you may click on a page's thumb- nail to immediately move to the item's starting page directly. Be aware, that as this full packet may include MINUTES of prior meetings, if searching the entire Packet for particular text, understand that when you find such text, that if it is within a MINUTES page of minutes, that are included in this agenda for approval, that it may appear to you that you are at an agenda item within the current agenda. Avoid such confusion by noting that pages that contain MINUTES included for approval are so identified at the top of each such page within this full packet. Agenda Item No.Starting Page Ending Page Agenda 1 11 SBCCOG CELEBRATES SOUTH BAY FIBER NETWORK 12 12 COVID-19 UPDATE BCHD 13 13 POLICE CHIEF UPDATE 14 14 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 15 29 UPDATES FROM AD HOC COMMITTEES 30 30 Consent Calendar 11a 31 41 11b 42 48 11c 49 52 11d 53 66 11e 67 70 11f 71 72 11g 73 78 PUBLIC HEARING 13a 79 96 Municipal Matters 14a 97 162 14b 163 203 14c 204 564 14d 565 578 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 15a 579 585 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Packet November 9, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda VIEWING OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS Public meetings are broadcast live on Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Channel 31 in Hermosa Beach. Additional viewing options are provided as a courtesy. ZOOM: Join the meeting link if available or participate by phone YOUTUBE CHANNEL: www.youtube.com/channel/UCaiZxw06ue-Tgc8DmXYzh2Q CITY WEBSITE: www.hermosabeach.gov and visit the Agendas/Minutes/Videos page ***PLEASE NOTE: IF YOU EXPERIENCE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WHILE VIEWING THE MEETING ON ONE OF THESE PLATFORMS, PLEASE TRY ONE OF THE OTHER VIEWING OPTIONS*** Page 2 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021 November 9, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda 6:00 P.M. - REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT Hybrid virtual/in-person meetings are held pursuant to AB361 because state and local officials are recommending measures to promote social distancing. Members of the public may email comments to Smorrow@hermosabeach.gov or submit eComments until 3:00 p.m. on the meeting date. COUNCIL CHAMBERS: 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach (Face mask required for all in-person attendance) JOIN VIRTUALLY AT: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89968207828?pwd=bXZmWS83dmxHWDZLbWRTK2RVaUxaUT09 OR PARTICIPATE BY PHONE: •Toll Free: 833-548-0276 •Meeting ID: 899 6820 7828, then # •Passcode: 472825 ATTENDEES WILL BE MUTED UNTIL THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PERIOD IS OPENED. If you are joining by phone, press * 6 to unmute your line. Comments from the public are limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Oral and Written Communication Persons who wish to have written materials included in the agenda packet at the time the agenda is published on the City's website must submit the written materials to the City Manager's office by email (smorrow@hermosabeach.gov) or in person by noon of the Tuesday, one week before the meeting date. Written materials pertaining to matters listed on the posted agenda received after the agenda has been posted will be added as supplemental materials under the relevant agenda item on the City's website at the same time as they are distributed to the City Council by email. Supplemental materials may be submitted via eComment (instructions below) or emailed to smorrow@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental materials must be received before 3:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting to ensure Council and staff have the ability to review materials prior to the meeting. Supplemental materials submitted after 3:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting or submitted during the meeting will be posted online the next day. Submit Supplemental eComments in three easy steps: Note: Your comments will become part of the official meeting record. You must provide your full name, but please do not provide any other personal information (i.e. phone numbers, addresses, etc) that you do not want to be published. 1. Go to the Agendas/Minutes/Video webpage and find the meeting you’d like to submit comments on. Click on the eComment button for your selected meeting. 2. Find the agenda item for which you would like to provide a comment. You can select a specific agenda item/project or provide general comments under the Oral/Written Communications item. 3. Sign in to your SpeakUp Hermosa Account or as a guest, enter your comment in the field provided, provide your name, and if applicable, attach files before submitting your comment. Page 3 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021 November 9, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. CLOSED SESSION REPORT V. ANNOUNCEMENTS - UPCOMING CITY EVENTS VI. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:This is the time for the City Council to change the order in which it takes up items on this agenda, remove and/or continue agenda items and pull items from the consent calendar for separate consideration. VII. PROCLAMATIONS / PRESENTATIONS a.21-0645 COVID-19 HEALTH UPDATE FROM BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT b.21-0662 RECOGNIZING UNITED AGAINST HATE WEEK NOVEMBER 14-20, 2021 VIII. CITY MANAGER REPORT - The City Manager and staff may provide brief reports on pending City business. Longer oral reports to be provided are as follows: a.21-0646 POLICE CHIEF UPDATE IX. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -- ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC: This is the time for members of the public to address the City Council on any items within the Council's jurisdiction not on this agenda, on items on this agenda as to which public comment will not be taken (City Manager Reports, City Councilmember Reports Consent Calendar items that are not pulled for separate consideration and Future Agenda Items), on written communications, and to request the removal of an item from the consent calendar. Public comments on the agenda items called City Manager Reports, City Councilmembers Reports, Consent Calendar items that are not pulled for separate consideration and Future Agenda Items will only be heard at this time. Further, comments on public hearing items are heard only during the public hearing. Members of the audience may also speak during discussion of items removed from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration; during Public Hearings; and, during discussion of items appearing under Municipal Matters. Page 4 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021 November 9, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda All comments from the public under this agenda item are limited to three minutes per speaker, but this time allotment may be reduced due to time constraints. The City Council acknowledges receipt of the written communications listed below. No action will be taken on matters raised in oral and written communications, except that the Council may take action to schedule issues raised in oral and written communications for a future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to the City Manager. a.21-0666 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Written Communication from Tony Higgins (submitted 11-1-2021 at 9.25 a.m.) Written Communication from Matt McCool (submitted 11-2-2021 at 12.01 p.m.) Attachments: X. CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS: Councilmembers may briefly respond to public comments, may ask a question for clarification or make a brief announcement or report on his or her own activities or meetings attended. a.21-0647 UPDATES FROM CITY COUNCIL AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEES AND STANDING COMMITTEE DELEGATES/ALTERNATES XI. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following matters will be acted upon collectively with a single motion and vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. Councilmembers may orally register a negative vote on any consent calendar item without pulling the item for separate consideration prior to the vote on the consent calendar. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council member removes an item from the Consent Calendar, either under Approval of the Agenda or under this item prior to the vote on the consent calendar. Items removed will be considered under Agenda Item XII (12), with public comment permitted at that time. The title is deemed to be read and further reading waived of any ordinance listed on the consent calendar for introduction or adoption. a.REPORT 21-0648 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES (Interim City Clerk Susan Morrow) 10-26-21 Regular City Council Mtg. MinutesAttachments: b.REPORT 21-0663 CHECK REGISTERS (Finance Director Viki Copeland) 1. 10-27-2021 2. 11-1-2021 Attachments: c.REPORT 21-0659 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 2021 Page 5 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021 November 9, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda (Interim Community Resources Manager Lisa Nichols) PR Minutes 10.05.2021Attachments: d.REPORT 21-0667 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE AND AMBULANCE MONTHLY REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 2021 (Emergency Management Coordinator Brandy Villanueva) Fire and Ambulance Monthly Report September 2021Attachments: e.REPORT 21-0649 ACTION SHEET OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 2021 (Community Development Director Ken Robertson) Action Minutes of the Economic Development Committee of November 1, 2021 Attachments: f.REPORT 21-0650 FINDINGS TO HOLD REMOTE TELECONFERENCE/MEETINGS, PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361 (Interim City Clerk Susan Morrow) Link to Assembly Bill 361Attachments: g.REPORT 21-0651 SECOND READING-ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 12.20.050 AND 12.28.010 OF TITLE 12 (STREET, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES) AND SECTION 6.08.020 OF TITLE 6 (ANIMALS), WHICH PERTAIN TO DOGS RUNNING UNLEASHED ON CITY PROPERTY AND CITY PARKS TO MAKE VIOLATIONS OF SUCH PROVISIONS SUBJECT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND SET PENALTIES ACCORDINGLY (Interim City Clerk Susan Morrow) Ordinance 21-1439Attachments: XII. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION - Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be handled separately. Public comment will be taken prior to Council deliberation and action on each item pulled from the Consent Calendar. XIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TO COMMENCE AT 6:30 P.M. a.REPORT 21-0671 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.74 (MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS) OF TITLE 5 (BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS), AND OTHER SPECIFIED CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE PROVISIONS ADOPTED Page 6 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021 November 9, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda BY REFERENCE HEREIN, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CHAPTER 7.54 (MASSAGE) OF DIVISION 2 (SPECIFIC BUSINESSES) OF TITLE 7 (BUSINESS LICENSES), CHAPTER 11.36 (MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS) OF DIVISION 1 (HEALTH CODE) OF TITLE 11 (HEALTH AND SAFETY), AND ARTICLE 2 (SIGNS) OF PART 8 (MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS) OF CHAPTER 8.04 (PUBLIC HEALTH LICENSES) DIVISION 1 (PUBLIC HEALTH LICENSES) OF TITLE 8 (CONSUMER PROTECTION, BUSINESS AND WAGE REGULATIONS) OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE, WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (City Attorney Michael Jenkins) 1. An Ordinance of the City of Hermosa BeachAttachments: XIV. MUNICIPAL MATTERS a.REPORT 21-0611 HEARING APPEAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR HERMOSA SALOON (Finance Director Viki Copeland) 1. Appeal from S.C. Johnson & Associates, P.C., representing Hermosa Saloon LLC and Kenneth Robert Garmoe 2. HBMC, Section 5.04.200 (A)(6) Schedule of Business Taxes. 3. Ordinance 11-1330 Enacting a Comprehensive Restructuring and Update of the Business Tax Ordinance 4. HBMC, Section 5.04.310 Appeals. 5. HBMC, Section 5.04.120 Determiniation of type or class of business. 6. HBMC, Section 17.04.050 Commercial land use definitions. 7. HBMC, Section 17.26.060 Restaurants with on-sale alcoholic beverages. 8. City Council Meeting Minutes, July 26 2011 9. Regular City Council Meeting July 26, 2011 (Item 6a Advance to 2:24:45) 10. HBMC, Section 5.04.230 Annual cost of living adjustment of taxes. Attachments: b.REPORT 21-0643 PURCHASE OF POLICE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE SYSTEM (Chief Paul LeBaron) 1. RFP - HBPD ERRCS 2021 2. ERRCS Contract with Commline, Inc. Attachments: c.REPORT 21-0658 APPROVAL OF THE ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND REASONABLE ASSURANCE ANALYSIS FOR THE BEACH CITIES WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP Page 7 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021 November 9, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda (Environmental Programs Manager Douglas Krauss) 1. Revised Enhanced Watershed Management Plan 2. Proposed Amendment to Dissolution MOU for Implementation of Joint Regional Projects 3. Replacement Projects Feasibility Report Attachments: d.REPORT 21-0653 APPEAL OF REMOVAL OF ON-STREET DISABLED PARKING SPACE AT 823 MONTEREY BOULEVARD (Director of Public Works Joe SanClemente) 1. Request to Remove On-Street Disabled Space Letter 2. Public Notice 3. Location Map 4. Appeal Notice 5. Guidelines for Requesting ADA Space 6. Supplemental Letter Attachments: XV. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - Requests from Councilmembers for possible future agenda items and questions from Councilmembers regarding the status of future agenda items. No discussion or debate of these requests shall be undertaken; the sole action is whether to schedule the item for consideration on a future agenda. No public comment will be taken. Councilmembers should consider the city's work plan when considering new items. The existing list of future agenda items below is for information only. a.21-0668 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Tentative Future Agenda.pdfAttachments: XVI. ADJOURNMENT Page 8 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021 November 9, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda FUTURE MEETINGS AND CITY HOLIDAYS CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS: November 23, 2021 - Tuesday - 5:00 PM - Closed Session, 6:00 PM - City Council Meeting December 14, 2021 - Tuesday - 5:00 PM - Closed Session, 6:00 PM - City Council Meeting December 28, 2020 - Tuesday - No Meeting (Dark) BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS: November 16, 2021 - Tuesday - 6:00 PM - Planning Commission Meeting November 17, 2021 - Wednesday - 6:00 PM - Public Works Commission Meeting December 6, 2021 - Monday - 6:00 PM - Economic Development Committee Meeting December 7, 2021 - Tuesday - 7:00 PM - Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting December 13, 2021 - Monday - 6:00 PM - Planning Commission Meeting CITY OFFICES CLOSED FRIDAY-SUNDAY AND ON THE FOLLOWING DAYS: November 11, 2021 - Thursday - Veteran's Day November 25, 2021 - Thursday - Thanksgiving Day Page 9 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report 21-0645 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 COVID-19 HEALTH UPDATE FROM BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report 21-0662 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 RECOGNIZING UNITED AGAINST HATE WEEK NOVEMBER 14-20, 2021 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report 21-0646 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 POLICE CHIEF UPDATE City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report 21-0666 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 WRITTEN COMMUNICATION Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council receive and file the written communication. Attachments: 1.Letter from Tony Higgins submitted November 1, 2021 2.Letter from Matt McCool submitted November 2, 2021 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Dear City Clerk Sarmiento Please make this a written communication to the City Council, the Public Works Commission and the Planning Commission to appear on the respective agendas. Also, since I call into question the city’s assertion that last summer was more or less a normal busy summer and that there was no significant impact resulting from the single lane configuration; please include this as a written communication to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Perhaps the Parks Commission can educate city staff to the fact that the large event schedule last summer was substantially curtailed because of covid and the city portrayal of last summer as more or less normal and the single lane configuration had no significant impact - well that was simply disingenuous & self- serving. Please also note that I have provided this in word.doc format. Hopefully this will eliminate the formatting problems ive had in some of my past written communications when they were imbedded in Granicus. START WRITTEN COMMUNICATION November 2, 2021 Dear: Mayor Massey, City Council, Planning Commission, Public Works Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission I would like to call your attention to the handling of the CEQA process related the single lane project, the outdoor dining project and the bike lane project. Specifically I didn’t receive a reply as to whether the CEQA initial study for (1) the citywide outdoor dining project that has now spread to over 60 locations, (2) the bike lane project on Pier Ave Hermosa avenues and (3) the commuter and truck lane reduction project (aka single lane project) on Pier Ave and Hermosa Ave would be now be fast-tracked along with fast-tracking the consequent CEQA negative declarations, mitigated negative declarations or Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) given the city is pursuing a more permanent outcome. As the city well knows, normally initial study and the consequent negative declarations or EIRs are done BEFORE breaking ground on projects with potential significant impacts. I believe the city used the temporary covid crisis to circumvent this CEQA requirement by claiming these 3 three projects were temporary, but that was simply misleading the publicv. The city had no intention whatsoever of making these project changes temporary, and the city has simply used the temporary designation to drag out and delay the CEQA evaluations required under state law. THE CITY FULL WELL KNEW ITS INTENT WAS TO MAKE THESE PROJECTS PERMANENT AND GIVEN ITS INTENT TO MAKE THESE PROJECTS PERMANENT THE CITY SHOULD NOT HAVE DELAYED THE CEQA EVALUATIONS BUT RATHER STARTED THEM IMMEDIATELY UPON PROJECT APPROVAL. STARTING THE CEQA PROCESS IMMEDIATELY FOR THESE 3 PROCESSES WOULD HAVE SERVED BOTH THE NEED TO GIVE THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY A JUMP START IN THE MIDST OF THE COVID CRISIS WHILE STILL DOING ITS BEST NOT TO ABUSE VULNERABLE NEIGHBORHOODS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER CEQA BY DELAYING THE ANALYSIS. BUT THE CITY HAD NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER IN TAKING A FAIR AND BALANCED APPROACH. MOREOVER, AT THE VERY LEAST, WHEN LA COUNTY LIFTED MANY OF ITS COVID RESTRICTIONS IN MAY 0F 2021 THE CITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PREPARED TO FAST- TRACK THE CEQA PROCESS FOR THESE 3 PROJECTS; GIVEN IT WAS CLEAR AT THIS TIME THE CITY WAS GOING TO DO EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER TO MAKE THESE 3 PROJECTS PERMANENT. BUT INSTEAD OF FAST-TRACKING THE CEQA EVALUATIONS THE CITY CONTINUED TO DELAY THEM AND DENY VULNERABLE NEIGHBORHOODS THEIR DUE-PROCESS UNDER CEQA BY ISSUING TEMPORARY EXTENSION AFTER TEMPORARY EXTENSION. JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED. SO, COUNCIL MEMBES, MY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS ARE: (1) WHY HAS THE CITY DELAYED THE REQUIRED CEQA ANALYSIS SINCE ITS INTENT FROM DAY-1 HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO MAKE THESE 3 PROJECTS PERMANENT? (2) WHAT IS THE SCHEDULE FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE INITIAL STUDY AND CONSEQUENT NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS OR EIRs AND WILL THE CITY FAST-TRACK THESE? (3) WHY DOES THE CITY COUNCIL ALLOW CITY STAFF TO CONTINUE TO GASLIGHT THE PUBLIC BY SAYING THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO VULNERABLE NEIGHBORHOODS RELATED TO THE ABOVE 3 PROJECTS? I MUST ASK WILL THE CITY COUNCIL FINALLY ACCEPT THE ROLE OF AN HONEST BROKER THAT IS CAPABLE OF LOOKING AT AND REPRESENTING ALL SIDES OF AN THESE PROJECTS AND NOT JUST THE TALKING POINTS OF THE CITY MANAGER AND CHAMBER OF COMMERECE AND OTHER COMMERCIAL INTERESTS AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS THAT BENEFIT FROM THESE PROJECTS WHILE EXTRACTING PROPERTY VALUE AND QUALITY OF LIFE FROM THE IMPACTED NEIGHBORHOODS? i realize that question 3 above is a pretty bold claim so let me provide some supporting evidence. Let’s start with the staff report (21-0633). In this staff report in the last city council meeting, staff claimed that claimed that there were no significant impacts from the single lane project or related projects. Here is a quote from this report: "Additional traffic counts and stakeholder communications completed since the June 2021 extension decision have added additional data to identify the viability and widespread community support for these programs. The programs have now continued successfully through a more normal and busy summer season without any substantial negative impacts on the community." Claiming that there were no significant impacts from these projects was simply gaslighting the public. The City Council was fully aware that there were many unresolved potential significant impacts but didn’t follow-up on a single one. First there has been substantial queuing of traffic on 27th at the intersections of Valley, Morningside and Manhattan Ave that were not considered in any analysis of the city to date… This has directly led to traffic delays, honking and the smell of auto exhaust permeating our yardsand sidewalks several hours a dayas the cars queue up at these intersections and then speed up the east and westbound inclines of 27th. These queuing delays at these intersections likely already fail the service levels established in the 2016 General Plan, and they contribute to Near Roadway Pollution and often overwhelm the senses. Its turning 27th street into Hermosa Beach’s version of “Love Canal” with the accumulation of DPM, soot and other likely carcinogenic toxins. Did the city study any of these issues before pontificating that there were “No Significant Impacts”. Also there here has been no analysis of the number of trucks now using 27th to illegally access the downtown business district since the city closed a lane of Pier Ave, the city’s only east west truck route running from PCH to Hermosa Ave. I estimate 2-300 hundred large trucks-per day per day are now using 27th steep narrow residential street to access the plaza area and westside construction. 27th street is intended to be a local collector road for businesses and construction projects located in NorthWest Hermosa Beach and not an arterial truck route to access downtown business. Pier Ave is the arterial truck route to access downtown. It’s the most direct route. It’s in a commercial district and its grade and width was designed to accommodate heavy truck traffic. Now the city wants to divert all the truck and event traffic off of Pier ave and into residential neighborhoods where the roads are far too narrow and steep to serve as an arterial truck route. Is this not a significant potential impact? Moreover, these impacts are a direct result of the cumulative effects of the single lane project and other city approved discretionary projects that collectively have had a huge impact on our neighborhood on 27th street. The city cannot ignore cumulative impacts under the CEQA laws established by the state but that is exactly what its trying to do. Nor can the city ignore indirect impacts to 27th street. Indirect impacts are defined by the courts as impacts separated by either time or space from the main project site. Clearly 27th street is separated by space and is impacted by the single lane project. And future special events must also be considered as an indirect impact by this definition. And just this past friday and saturday night the traffic on 27th was non-stop much of the evening until about 1AM. People were blowing through the stop signs with impunity. Only 1 in 10 cars came to a full stop. About 1 in 20 cars was one of these super loud modified exhaust vehicles and they screamed and sped up 27ths steep inclines every 5-10 minutes making it impossible to sleep with your windows open. It was just anarchy. We never had this amount of late-night traffic on 27th before the single lane configuration. I see NO reason to conclude this is NOT a direct result of traffic avoiding the traffic on Pier Ave due to the single lane configuration. And the idea posited by city officials in the staff report mentioned above that we made it through the summer months without significant impacts was simply more gaslighting by our city staff and city manager. We did NOT have the normal special events summer schedule because of Covid. Please consider that large special events can generate thousands of heavy-truck-trips supporting these large special events when you consider event set-up, tear down, vender and store supply trucks, trash trucks, etc., and that does not even include the event traffic itself. Did the city assess the impact of restricting the only east-west truck route in the city down to a single lane on residential streets like 27th? Did the city do special event impact projections given its stated desire to “go big” related to special events in the downtown area? Do you really think these trucks and traffic associated with these large downtown events are going to use Pier Ave to access these special events now that the truck route on Pier has been closed down to a narrow single lane with stop signs or crosswalks every 100 feet or so? NO - THEY ARE GOING TO USE 27TH STREET BUT YOUR ANALYSIS CLAIMING NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT DIDNT CONSIDER ANY OF THE ABOVE. Here is the URL to this staff report: https://hermosabeach.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5192378&GUID=D87A19 29-82FD-4754-8D7C-67108A46600A Let me conclude that there are many other significant direct and indirect impacts the city didn’t consider in making its totally bogus no impact claims. i will make a comprehensive list for inclusion in the CEQA documentation once the city gets around to doing the CEQA analysis required by state law. But this takes time and preparation and that is why I have asked for a schedule of when the CEQA initial studies and consequent negative declarations or EIRs will be done. The city council can ask staff to provide a brief report on this without violating the Brown Act. Will the council do that? And let me say that all 3 projects, the single lane project, the outdoor dining project and the bicycle lane project were all allowed to bypass CEQA for far too long because of their temporary designation. These 3 projects no longer have a temporary designation and all 3 are now subject to CEQA.. They are one large project and it would be a manipulation of the CEQA protections afforded to vulnerable neighborhoods not to consider them a single project along or to ignore the cumulative impacts that Vista Elementary, past modifications to Pier ave that have made it harder for trucks to use Pier Ave to access the plaza area businesses or even to ignore the impact of the berms installed on Herondo that made it virtually impossible for large trucks to access downtown via Hermosa Ave. Finally, please consider that the city is legally required to run the bike lane project through the CEQA process if it results in lane reductions, especially if those reductions are to truck route or major commuter route roads in our city. Has this been done? Our City Manager is totally off the rails. She subverted the LA county covid orders by allowing outdoor dining in Hermosa Beach when LA county specifically forbade this. This was at the peak of the pandemic when LA county hospitals and doctors and medical staff were pleading for help and cooperation and people were dying at record rates. Now our city manager has totally misrepresented the impacts of the single lane projects and used the covid crisis to unreasonably delay the completion of the CEQA analysis. It’s a pattern of gaslighting, misrepresentation and manipulation. But all our City Council seems to be able to do about it is yawn. Sincerely, Anthony Higgins City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report 21-0647 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 UPDATES FROM CITY COUNCIL AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEES AND STANDING COMMITTEE DELEGATES/ALTERNATES City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 21-0648 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES (Interim City Clerk Susan Morrow) Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council approve the following minutes: 1.October 26, 2021 Regular City Council Meeting Respectfully Submitted by: Susan Morrow, Interim City Clerk Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 26, 2021 Closed Session - 5:00 P.M., Regular Session - 6:00 P.M. Virtual Meeting via Zoom City Council Justin Massey, Mayor Michael Detoy, Mayor Pro Tem Stacey Armato, Councilmember Mary Campbell, Councilmember Ray Jackson, Councilmember I. CALL TO ORDER The City Council Regular Meeting of the City of Hermosa Beach met via a virtual meeting held pursuant to Executive Order AB 361 issued by Governor Gavin Newsom September 16, 2021 on the above date. Meeting was called to order by Mayor Massey at 5:01 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led Mayor Massey. III. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Jackson, Campbell, Armato, Mayor Pro Tem Detoy, and Mayor Massey Absent: None IV. CLOSED SESSION REPORT City Attorney Jenkins stated that the City Council Closed Session Meeting began at 5:11 p.m. and two people provided public comment for the closed session agenda, no additional items were added. The City Council approved a settlement of $3 million in the matter of Leibfried v. Hermosa Beach, et al. He stated that the City’s costs is $250,000 with the balance to be paid by the insurance pool. City Attorney Jenkins stated that the City Council will reconvene after the Regular Meeting to discuss the item, City Manager’s Performance Evaluation. (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 Closed Session Report) V. ANNOUNCEMENTS – UPCOMMING CITY EVENT Councilmember Jackson announced that the Historical Society is hosting a 70’s themed screening of the movie, Carrie, which was partially filmed in Hermosa Beach on October 30, 2021 at 6:30 p.m. He thanked the Historical Society and the City for this opportunity. Mayor Massey shared announcement that the Friends of the Library Bookstore has a new location. Friends of the Library is now located next to the parking lot of the Hermosa Beach Community Center at 710 Pier Ave. They are in a freestanding building on the south side of the Center complex on 11th Place (up from the Tennis Courts and across the street from the Alano Club). There is ample parking in the Community Center parking lot, and easy access to the Bookstore. Their next sale will be Saturday November 20, 2021 from 10 a.m. – 1 p.m. Weekly hours of operation are Mondays from 9 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. and Fridays from 9 a.m. – 4 p.m. Their website is www.HBFOL.org. Mayor Massey concluded his announcements by sharing that the Hermosa Beach Community Center will be a trick-or-treat stop. He invited everyone to stop by, show off their costumes, and grab a special treat while supplies last at 710 Pier Avenue on Sunday, October 31, 2021. Councilmember Campbell mentioned she stopped by the new location and the Friends of the Library Bookstore is accepting donations. (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 Announcements Upcoming City Events) VI. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Pro Tem Detoy requested item 11j be pulled from the consent calendar for separate consideration. MOTION: Councilmember Armato moved to pull item 11j from the consent calendar agenda for separate consideration as requested by Mayor Pro Detoy, seconded by Councilmember Jackson. Motion carried unanimously. AYES: Councilmembers Jackson, Campbell, Armato, Mayor Pro Tem Detoy, and Mayor Massey NOES: None (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s Office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 Approval of the Agenda) VII. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS a. SBCCOG CELEBRATES SOUTH BAY FIBER NETWORK b. COVID-19 HEALTH UPDATE FROM BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT c. HERMOSA BEACH MURALS PROJECT (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s Office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 Proclamations and Presentations) VIII. CITY MANAGER REPORT City Manager Lowenthal began her report by announcing that the Southern California Edison’s construction project at 2nd Street and Hermosa Avenue is nearing completion. She thanked the Public Works team for their efforts on Semi-Annual Reseeding Program at South Park and mentioned that reseeding will occur at Valley Park in December. Ms. Lowenthal announced that the City will be hosting a community meeting on November 3rd from 6 to 7 p.m. to discuss the possible conversion of 26th Street, between Morningside Drive and Manhattan Avenue, to a one-way street as a measure to help traffic flow and safety for Vista School. Ms. Lowenthal stated that the City will be honoring our veterans on Veterans Day with the Veterans are Timeless campaign. The City is seeking submissions of veterans who have a connection to Hermosa Beach to feature in a video that will be shared on the local access TV channels, the City’s website and social media. Please submit names and information on the City’s website at Hermosabeach.gov /veterans. On Veterans Day, Thursday, November 11, 2021, the names of each veteran submitted will be showcased near the Veterans Memorial located on the east lawn of the Hermosa Beach Community Center. Ms. Lowenthal reminded that all entries for the City’s 12th Annual Parking Permit Contest must be submitted by October 31, 2021. The contest is open to all current residents and is limited to one entry per resident. Please submit the artwork online at hermosabeach.gov/contest. The winner of the contest will receive one free parking permit if they live in the restricted parking area. If the winner does not live in the restricted area, they will be awarded the monetary value of one parking permit. City Manager Lowenthal explained that the Public Works team has completed modifications to the Temporary Beach Access Route. The modifications included removal of most of the interlocking tiles and redeployment of the Mobi-Mat roll-out material at the 168- foot winter length. The reduced path length will allow for the construction of the winter sand berm next month. The winter deployment will remain in place until summer when the berm will be removed. City Manager Lowenthal concluded her report by sharing that Eduardo Sarmiento who joined the City last year as the first appointed City Clerk accepted the City Clerk position at the City of Huntington Park to be closer to home. She publicized his accomplishments of modernizing the City Clerk’s Office, launching the City’s new online public records request portal, and helping to make the shift to online City Council meetings, which ensured we could continue to meet safely during the pandemic. She then welcomed and introduced Susan Morrow as the Interim City Clerk until a recruitment for a fulltime City Clerk can be completed. Chief LeBaron provided his update. (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 City Manager Report) IX. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS/ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The following people provided public comment: 1. Tony Higgins 2. Jim Parkman 3. Dean Francois 4. Taylor Hart 5. Kent Allen 6. Sarah Harper 7. Trent Larson 8. Dency Nelson 9. Matt McCool MOTION: Councilmember Armato moved to receive and file the written communication, seconded by Councilmember Jackson. Motion carried unanimously. AYES: Councilmembers Jackson, Campbell, Armato, Mayor Pro Tem Detoy, and Mayor Massey NOES: None (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 Public Communication/Oral Written Communications) X. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS a. UPDATES FROM CITY COUNCIL AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEES AND STANDING COMMITTEE DELEGATES/ALTERNATES (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 City Council Comments) XI. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Pro Tem Detoy previously requested Consent Calendar item j be pulled for separate consideration during the approval of the agenda. MOTION: Councilmember Campbell moved to approve the Consent Calendar except for item j, which will be considered separately, seconded by Councilmember Armato. Motion carried unanimously. AYES: Councilmembers Jackson, Campbell, Armato, Mayor Pro Tem Detoy, and Mayor Massey NOES: None a. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES b. CHECK REGISTERS c. REVENUE REPORT, COVID-19 REVENUE TRACKING REPORT, EXPENDITURE REPORT, AND CIP REPORT BY PROJECT FOR JULY AND AUGUST 2021 d. CITY TREASURER’S REPORT AND CASH BALANCE REPORT e. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STATUS REPORT AS OF OCTOBER 19, 2021 f. ACTION SHEET OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2021 g. PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS h. CORRECTION TO ORDINANCE REGARDING RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL EVICTION PROTECTIONS i. FINDINGS TO HOLD REMOTE TELECONFERENCE/MEETINGS, PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361 j. TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT AT 1800 PROSPECT AVENUE- HERMOSA VIEW SCHOOL (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 Consent Calendar) XII. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION j. TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT AT 1800 PROSPECT AVENUE- HERMOSA VIEW SCHOOL The following people provided public comment: 1. Trent Larson MOTION: Councilmember Armato moved to approve the removal of four trees fronting Hermosa View School at 1800 Prospect Avenue by Rigo Barajas/So-Cal Arbor Care at a cost of $18,000, and appropriate $25,000 from the Capital Improvement Fund for the removal of four trees and installation of eight replacement trees, seconded by Councilmember Jackson. Motion carried by majority consent. AYES: Councilmembers Jackson, Campbell, Armato, and Mayor Massey NOES: Mayor Pro Tem Detoy (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 Items Removed from Consent Calendar Item j) XIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 12.20.020, 12.28.010, AND 6.08.020 WHICH PERTAIN TO ANIMALS BEING MAINTAINED AND UNLEASHED IN AREAS WITHIN THE CITY SUBJECTING VIOLATIONS TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AND AMENDING SECTION 1.10.040 TO SET PENALTIES ACCORDINGLY; AND A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE CITY’S MASTER FEE RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY AMOUNT FOR VIOLATING THE FOREGOING HBMC SECTIONS The following people provided public comment: 1. Tony Higgins 2. Trent Larson MOTION: Councilmember Jackson moved to introduce and waive first reading of an ordinance, and adopt a resolution titled, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California Amending Resolution No. 16-7045 (Master Fee Resolution) to Establish an Administrative Penalty Amount for Violating Sections 12.20.020 and 12.28.010 of Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places) and Section 6.08.020 of Title 6 (Animals), which pertain to Animals being maintained and unleashed in areas within the City," seconded by Councilmember Armato. Motion carried unanimously. AYES: Councilmembers, Jackson, Campbell, Armato, and Mayor Pro Tem Detoy, and Mayor Massey NOES: None (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 Public Hearing item a) b. TEXT AMENDMENT (TA 21-03) TO SECTION 17.40.230 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE CITY’S SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTAL PILOT PROGRAM, AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The following people provided public comment: 1. Tony Higgins 2. Scott Hayes 3. Trent Larson 4. Jon David MOTION: Councilmember Armato moved to hold a public hearing to consider TA 21-03 to amend Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, Chapter 17.40, Section 17.40.230, to continue the City's Short-term Vacation Rental Pilot Program for two additional years and revise the existing language to help clarify an d clear up the existing requirements for short-term vacation rentals, and introduce, on first reading, the proposed ordinance approving TA 21 -03 amendments, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Detoy. Motion carried by unanimous ly. AYES: Councilmembers Jackson, Campbell, Armato, and Mayor Pro Tem Detoy, and Mayor Massey NOES: None (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 Public Hearing item b) XIV. MUNICIPAL MATTERS a. APPROVAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH HARTZOG & CRABILL The following person provided public comment: 1. Tony Higgins MOTION: Councilmember Armato moved to approve the proposed first amendment to an agreement with Hartzog & Crabill for on-call traffic engineering services to extend the contract by one year, through October 1, 2022, and to increase the total amount of the agreement by $250,000 resulting in a total amended contract term of three years and a total amended not -to-exceed amount of $300,000, and authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the attached first amendment subject to approval by the City Attorney, seconded by Councilmember Campbell. Motion carried unanimously. AYES: Councilmembers, Jackson, Campbell, Armato, and Mayor Pro Tem Detoy, and Mayor Massey NOES: None (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 Municipal Matter item a) b. STATUS UPDATE AND DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS FOR TEMPORARY EXPANDED OUTDOOR DINING AND RETAIL AND TEMPORARY LANE RECONFIGURATIONS IMPLEMENTED TO HELP BUSINESSES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC The following person provided public comment: 1. Tony Higgins The Councilmembers individually provided their comments and direction to Staff and brought back for consideration. (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 Municipal Matter item b) XV. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS a. TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Massey requested a report for single use plastic program and compliance to be brought back to City Council within one to three months. Councilmembers Armato and Campbell supported an agenda be brought back. Mayor Massey requested an update on Plan Hermosa. Councilmembers Armato, Campbell and Jackson supported an agenda be brought back. Councilmember Campbell noted that the Revenue Study Session may need to be rescheduled. (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 Future Agenda items) ADJOURNMENT City Attorney Jenkins adjourned the City Council meeting to resume the Closed Session Meeting at 8:41 p.m. (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 Closed Session Meeting resumed). City Attorney Jenkins returned from Closed Session Meeting concluded at 12:24 a.m. on October 27, 2021 and he announced that there was no further reportable action taken by City Council in the Closed Session. (Complete audio and video are available upon request at the City Clerk’s office or can be accessed by clicking the following link: October 26, 2021 Closed Session Meeting Adjournment). Susan Morrow, Interim City Clerk City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 21-0663 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 CHECK REGISTERS (Finance Director Viki Copeland) Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council ratify the following check registers. Attachments: 1.Check Register 10/27/2021 2.Check Register 11/1/2021 Respectfully Submitted by: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 11/01/2021 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1 9:32:32AM Page: Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 98393 11/1/2021 AMERICAN ARBOR CARE 63265 ARBORIST CONSULTATION 9/23/2120197 001-6101-4201 250.00 ARBORIST CONSULTATION 10/6/2163337 001-6101-4201 250.00 Total : 500.0020197 98394 11/1/2021 AQUA FLO SI1810788 MAT REQ 638554/IRRIGATION PARTS/SEP2109366 001-6101-4309 199.60 MAT REQ 638552/IRRIGATION PARTS/SEPT21SI808803 001-6101-4309 743.68 Total : 943.2809366 98395 11/1/2021 BARROWS, PATRICK PO 36778 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/CLASSES17271 001-4601-4221 9,287.11 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/CLASS 9654PO 36808 001-4601-4221 112.00 Total : 9,399.1117271 98396 11/1/2021 COLLINS, DENNIS L.PO 36781 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/CLASSES05970 001-4601-4221 2,992.50 Total : 2,992.5005970 98397 11/1/2021 DAVIS, CHRISTINA PO 36783 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/CLASS 9562-6322389 001-4601-4221 1,571.82 Total : 1,571.8222389 98398 11/1/2021 FRONTIER 209-190-0013-1206175 PD COMPUTER CIRCUITS/OCT2119884 001-2101-4304 916.46 001-2026 13.55 001-2027 -13.55 CASHIER TAPS LINE/SEP21310-318-8751-0128095 001-1204-4304 66.44 001-2026 9.00 001-2027 -9.00 JAIL BREATHALYZER/OCT21310-318-9210-0827185 001-1203-4304 85.37 001-2026 9.00 001-2027 -9.00 Attachment 2 11/01/2021 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 2 9:32:32AM Page: Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 98398 11/1/2021 (Continued)FRONTIER19884 2ND FL CANON FAX 9/16-10/15/21310-372-6186-0831895 001-1121-4304 14.74 001-1141-4304 14.75 001-1201-4304 14.74 001-1202-4304 14.75 001-1203-4304 14.71 2ND FL CANON FAX 8/16-9/15/21310-372-6186-0831895 001-1121-4304 14.74 001-1141-4304 14.75 001-1201-4304 14.74 001-1202-4304 14.75 001-1203-4304 14.71 2ND FL CANON FAX 7/16-8/15/21310-372-6186-0831895 001-1202-4304 14.78 001-1203-4304 14.71 001-1101-4304 14.76 001-1141-4304 14.77 001-1201-4304 14.76 PERSONNEL FAX LINE/AUG21310-372-6373-0311045 001-1203-4304 69.92 001-2026 9.00 001-2027 -9.00 PERSONNEL FAX LINE/SEP21310-372-6373-0311045 001-1203-4304 69.89 001-2026 9.00 001-2027 -9.00 FIBER OPTIC LINE/OCT21323-155-6779-0822065 715-1206-4201 220.80 001-2026 4.80 001-2027 -4.80 EOC CABLE & INTERNET/SEP21323-159-2268-0924145 001-1201-4304 296.08 Total : 1,946.1219884 98399 11/1/2021 REGISTRAR RECORDER CO CLERK PO 36789-8498163 DEATH CERTIFICATE COPY02927 001-2101-4201 21.00 Total : 21.0002927 11/01/2021 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 3 9:32:32AM Page: Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 98400 11/1/2021 TRIANGLE HARDWARE 30460-30478 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES/OCT2100123 001-3104-4309 3,023.70 001-4204-4309 1,627.92 001-6101-4309 485.96 105-2601-4309 470.86 001-2026 102.28 001-2027 -102.28 Total : 5,608.4400123 Bank total : 22,982.27 8 Vouchers for bank code :boa 22,982.27Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report 8 "I hereby certify that the demands or claims covered by the checks listed on pages 1 to 3 inclusive, of the check register for 11/1/2021 are accurate funds are available for payment, and are in conformance to the budget." . . . By ______________________________________________ Finance Director . 11/1/2021 Date ____________________________________________ 11/01/2021 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 1 9:32:32AM Page: Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 98393 11/1/2021 AMERICAN ARBOR CARE 63265 ARBORIST CONSULTATION 9/23/2120197 001-6101-4201 250.00 ARBORIST CONSULTATION 10/6/2163337 001-6101-4201 250.00 Total : 500.0020197 98394 11/1/2021 AQUA FLO SI1810788 MAT REQ 638554/IRRIGATION PARTS/SEP2109366 001-6101-4309 199.60 MAT REQ 638552/IRRIGATION PARTS/SEPT21SI808803 001-6101-4309 743.68 Total : 943.2809366 98395 11/1/2021 BARROWS, PATRICK PO 36778 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/CLASSES17271 001-4601-4221 9,287.11 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/CLASS 9654PO 36808 001-4601-4221 112.00 Total : 9,399.1117271 98396 11/1/2021 COLLINS, DENNIS L.PO 36781 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/CLASSES05970 001-4601-4221 2,992.50 Total : 2,992.5005970 98397 11/1/2021 DAVIS, CHRISTINA PO 36783 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT/CLASS 9562-6322389 001-4601-4221 1,571.82 Total : 1,571.8222389 98398 11/1/2021 FRONTIER 209-190-0013-1206175 PD COMPUTER CIRCUITS/OCT2119884 001-2101-4304 916.46 001-2026 13.55 001-2027 -13.55 CASHIER TAPS LINE/SEP21310-318-8751-0128095 001-1204-4304 66.44 001-2026 9.00 001-2027 -9.00 JAIL BREATHALYZER/OCT21310-318-9210-0827185 001-1203-4304 85.37 001-2026 9.00 001-2027 -9.00 Attachment 2 11/01/2021 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 2 9:32:32AM Page: Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 98398 11/1/2021 (Continued)FRONTIER19884 2ND FL CANON FAX 9/16-10/15/21310-372-6186-0831895 001-1121-4304 14.74 001-1141-4304 14.75 001-1201-4304 14.74 001-1202-4304 14.75 001-1203-4304 14.71 2ND FL CANON FAX 8/16-9/15/21310-372-6186-0831895 001-1121-4304 14.74 001-1141-4304 14.75 001-1201-4304 14.74 001-1202-4304 14.75 001-1203-4304 14.71 2ND FL CANON FAX 7/16-8/15/21310-372-6186-0831895 001-1202-4304 14.78 001-1203-4304 14.71 001-1101-4304 14.76 001-1141-4304 14.77 001-1201-4304 14.76 PERSONNEL FAX LINE/AUG21310-372-6373-0311045 001-1203-4304 69.92 001-2026 9.00 001-2027 -9.00 PERSONNEL FAX LINE/SEP21310-372-6373-0311045 001-1203-4304 69.89 001-2026 9.00 001-2027 -9.00 FIBER OPTIC LINE/OCT21323-155-6779-0822065 715-1206-4201 220.80 001-2026 4.80 001-2027 -4.80 EOC CABLE & INTERNET/SEP21323-159-2268-0924145 001-1201-4304 296.08 Total : 1,946.1219884 98399 11/1/2021 REGISTRAR RECORDER CO CLERK PO 36789-8498163 DEATH CERTIFICATE COPY02927 001-2101-4201 21.00 Total : 21.0002927 11/01/2021 Check Register CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH 3 9:32:32AM Page: Bank code :boa Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Description/Account Amount 98400 11/1/2021 TRIANGLE HARDWARE 30460-30478 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES/OCT2100123 001-3104-4309 3,023.70 001-4204-4309 1,627.92 001-6101-4309 485.96 105-2601-4309 470.86 001-2026 102.28 001-2027 -102.28 Total : 5,608.4400123 Bank total : 22,982.27 8 Vouchers for bank code :boa 22,982.27Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report 8 "I hereby certify that the demands or claims covered by the checks listed on pages 1 to 3 inclusive, of the check register for 11/1/2021 are accurate funds are available for payment, and are in conformance to the budget." . . . By ______________________________________________ Finance Director . 11/1/2021 Date ____________________________________________ City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 21-0659 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 5, 2021 (Interim Community Resources Manager Lisa Nichols) Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council receive and file the action minutes of the Parks,Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of October 5, 2021. Attachments: 1.Action Minutes of the October 5, 2021 Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission Meeting Respectfully Submitted by: Lisa Nichols, Interim Community Resources Manager Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING of the PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMISSION October 5, 2021 – Council Chambers, City Hall 1315 Valley Drive – 7:00 P.M. Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission Barbara Ellman, Chairperson Traci Horowitz, Vice Chairperson Jani Lange E. Thomas Moroney Lauren Pizer Mains ************************************************************************************************************************ THIS MEETING WAS HELD PURSUANT TO EXECUTIVE ORDER N-29-20 ISSUED BY GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM ON MARCH 17, 2020. ANY OR ALL COMMISSIONERS MAY ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE BY TELECONFERENCE/VIRTUAL MEETING. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE BY TELECONFERENCE. ************************************************************************************************************************ Oral and Written Communication Persons who wish to have written materials included in the agenda packet at the time the agenda is published on the City's website must submit the written materials to the Community Resources Department by email (lnichols@hermosabeach.gov) or in person by noon of the Tuesday, one week before the meeting date. Written materials pertaining to matters listed on the posted agenda received after the agenda has been posted will be added as supplemental materials under the relevant agenda item on the City's website at the same time as they are distributed to the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission by email. Supplemental materials may be emailed to lnichols@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental materials must be received before 3:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting to ensure Commission and staff have the ability to review materials prior to the meeting. Supplemental materials submitted after 4:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting or submitted during the meeting will be posted online the next day. 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call Present: Chairperson Ellman, Vice Chairpers on Horowitz, Commissioner Lange, Commissioner Moroney, Commissioner Pizer Mains, Recreation Coordinator Nick Shattuck, Interim Community Resources Manager Lisa Nichols, Assistant Engineer Jonathan C. Pascaul, Deputy City Engineer Lucho Rodriguez, Public Works Director Joseph SanClemente, and Associate City Attorney Patrick Donegan. 4. Announcements 5. Presentations A. Fine Arts Festival Post-event Presentation Coming forward to address the Commission at this time: (02:49) Jan Brittain, Fine Arts Festival represe ntative B. Park Restroom Project 6. Miscellaneous Items and Reports – Community Resources Manager A. COVID-19 Updates B. 2021 Special Events Calendar C. Updates Regarding Items Previously on the Commission’s Agenda 7. Public Comment Anyone wishing to address the Commission on items pertaining to parks and recreation may do so at this time. The Brown Act generally prohibits the Commission from taking action on any matter not listed on the posted agenda. Comments from the public are limited to three minutes per speaker. Coming forward to address the Commission at this time: (43:23) Tony Higgins, Hermosa Beach resident 8. Correspondence A. None 9. Consent Calendar A. Adjourned Regular Meeting Minutes of August 3, 2021 B. Adjourned Regular Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2021 C. Department Activity Report for July 2021 D. Department Activity Report for August 2021 Commission Moroney pulled Item B. Adjourned Regular Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2021 from the Consent Calendar. Motion by Commissioner Lange to approve items A. Adjourned Regular Meeting Minutes of August 3, 2021, C. Department Activity Report for July 2021, and D. Department Activity Report for August 2021 for on the Consent Calendar. Vice Chairperson Horowitz seconded the motion. Motion passed with a 5-0 vote. 10. Items Removed from the Consent Calendar for Separate Discussion Motion by Commissioner Moroney to approve item B. Adjourned Regular Meeting Minutes of September 20, 2021 on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Lange seconded the motion. Motion passed with a 5-0 vote. 11. Public Hearings A. None. 12. Matters for Commission Consideration A. Consideration of Resident Request to Relocate the Beach Tennis Courts to an Area Closer to the Pier Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission consider whether it would like to pursue a resident request to relocate the beach tennis courts to an area closer to the Pier. Coming forward to address the Commission at this time: (1:04:07) Donny Young, Hermosa Beach resident Gary Rhodes, Hermosa Beach resident Nancy Dunn, residence unknown Mark Bonfigli, Hermosa Beach resident Dean Francois, Hermosa Beach resident Erik Singer, Hermosa Beach resident Tim Anderson, residence unknown Tanner Seward, residence unknown Motion by Commissioner Lange to deny the resident request to relocate the Beach Tennis Courts to an area closer to the Pier due to a lack of evidence on noise impact from the beach tennis courts to the surrounding residents. Vice Chair-person Horowitz seconded the motion. Motion passed with a 5-0 vote. B. Creation of a Residential Volleyball Court Use Subcommittee Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission create a Subcommittee to work collaboratively with staff on review of the residential volleyball courts. Coming forward to address the Commission at this time: (2:21:03) Jordan Lang, residence unknown Motion by Commissioner Lange to nominate Chair Ellman and Commission Horowitz to the Residential Volleyball Court Use Subcommittee. Commissioner Pizer Mains seconded the motion. Motion passed with a 5-0 vote. 13. Commissioner’s Reports A. Sub-committees i. Special Event (Lange and Ellman) ii. Community Theatre (Lange and Pizer Mains) iii. Municipal Leases (Pizer Mains and Horowitz) iv. Community Resources Department Use Policies (Ellman) v. Clark Building Improvements (Ellman and Pizer Mains) B. Commission Liaison Roles i. Surfers Walk of Fame (Lange) ii. Access Hermosa (Ellman) – on hold 14. Items Requested by Commissioners A. None. 15. Other Matters 16. Adjournment This meeting was adjourned to the regular Tuesday, November 2, meeting by Chairperson Ellman at 9:43pm. City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 21-0667 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE AND AMBULANCE MONTHLY REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 2021 (Emergency Management Coordinator Brandy Villanueva) Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council receive and file the September 2021 Fire and Ambulance monthly report. Executive Summary: City departments generate monthly reports to provide a snapshot of activities performed each month. Prior to the transition of fire and ambulance transport services to the County of Los Angeles,the Hermosa Beach Fire Department developed monthly response reports.After the transition,the monthly report was updated to include Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD)and McCormick Ambulance information and continues to be uploaded to the website.The following report provides details regarding services provided for the month of September 2021. Background: At the February 11,2020 Council meeting,City Council requested monthly reports be placed onto the City Council agenda under consent calendar.On the July 14,2020 City Council agenda,the monthly reports began to appear. The enclosed report reflects the services for September 2021. Past Council Actions Meeting Date Description February 11, 2020 (Regular Meeting)City Council requested monthly reports be placed onto the City Council agenda under consent calendar. July 14, 2020 (Regular Meeting)Monthly reports began on City Council consent agenda Discussion: The September 2021 monthly report provides an overview of services provided by LACoFD and McCormick Ambulance (Attachment 1:September 2021 LACoFD and McCormick Ambulance Monthly Report). City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 5 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0667 Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) LACoFD and McCormick Ambulance work together to provide emergency medical services (EMS)to the Hermosa Beach community.LACoFD has two apparatus stationed at Station 100 including:one assessment engine (Engine 100)staffed with a Fire Captain,a Fire Engineer and a Firefighter Paramedic;and a paramedic squad (Squad 100)staffed with two Firefighter Paramedics.It is important to note that the paramedic squad (Squad 100)only responds to calls for service within the City of Hermosa Beach.The paramedic unit does not provide mutual aid and instead remains available for calls within Hermosa Beach. Each of the LACoFD apparatus have the capability of providing basic emergency medical care known as Basic Life Support (BLS)to medical patients.In addition,the paramedic squad has advanced equipment including medications and responds from within the City to address Advanced Life Support (ALS) calls, such as a stroke or heart attack. McCormick Ambulance is one of the emergency medical transport companies within Los Angeles County.LACoFD does not conduct patient transport therefore unincorporated areas are included in the fire department transport contracts with various providers.Contract cities are responsible for negotiating and contracting with a medical transport provider for their community.Within the South Bay,many of the cities have contracted with McCormick Ambulance to conduct emergency medical transportation including the City of Hermosa Beach. When LACoFD is dispatched,McCormick Ambulance may also be dispatched as the City’s emergency medical transportation provider.LACoFD provides life-saving medical care on scene and continues ALS level care as the patient is transported to a local hospital.In the case of a BLS level call,monitoring and care is safely provided by one of the two Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT’s) assigned to the responding ambulance. LACoFD follows industry standards developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), which outlines call transfer times and total response times.The NFPA standard for call transfer time is that each call will be answered within 60 seconds 90 percent of the time.Additionally,responding units are to be enroute within 60 seconds to EMS related calls and 80 seconds for structure fire calls. NFPA further stipulates that for EMS calls,responding units must arrive on scene within 8 minutes and 59 seconds 90 percent of the time. The September 2021 call transfer report provided by LACoFD indicates that all calls were transferred within the NFPA standard. City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 2 of 5 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0667 McCormick Ambulance McCormick Ambulances are staffed by two EMT’s who can provide and transport BLS patients independently and,with the support of LACoFD paramedics riding in the ambulance,can also transport ALS patients. In September 2021,McCormick Ambulance responded to 76 calls for services within the City of Hermosa Beach.The September 2021 report indicated that 11 calls resulted in delayed Code 3 responses and 1 call resulted in delayed Code 2 responses,which is a slight decrease in delayed calls from the August 2021 transport report.A Code 3 response is when the responding emergency units are driving with lights and sirens to a presumed life-threatening emergency,which is typically classified as an ALS call.According to the McCormick Ambulance contract,“response time must not exceed eight (8)minutes,fifty-nine (59)seconds”for a Code 3 incident.A Code 2 response is when the responding emergency units are driving with lights and sirens to an emergency situation classified as a basic life support or BLS call. After staff’s review of the September 2021 McCormick Ambulance monthly report and a discussion with McCormick Ambulance management,the following outlines the reasons for the delayed responses: ·Multiple Calls: (9) The dispatch center received multiple calls at the same time; ·Distance:(2)Based on the location the ambulance begins the response to the City,it could impact the response time.The City contract does not have a unit permanently stationed within Hermosa Beach,therefore the responding ambulance often begins the response outside of the City; and ·APOT:(1)Ambulance Patient Offload Time happens when there are 3 or more ambulances at a hospital waiting at least 30 minutes to transfer care of the patient from the ambulance crew to the hospital for continuation of care. McCormick Ambulance continues to be impacted by the patient offload time when transporting patients to the hospitals.The local hospitals are managing staffing challenges,COVID-19 patients as well as general medical emergencies and adhering to their patient to nurse ratio.Hospital operations continue to limit McCormick’s ability to quickly transfer patient care from the ambulance transport team to hospital staff.In these instances,ambulance crews are providing care to patients in the hospital setting for an extended period of time with multiple ambulance crews at the same hospital waiting to transfer their patients. As our transport provider,McCormick Ambulance continually works with Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency and hospitals to address hospital wait times.One measure currently in place is the deployment of a McCormick Ambulance gurney van,with a senior staff City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 3 of 5 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0667 currently in place is the deployment of a McCormick Ambulance gurney van,with a senior staff member,to a local hospital with multiple McCormick Ambulance units waiting to transfer care.The senior staff member is able to take over patient monitoring to allow the responding units to restock their ambulances and return to in service status for additional calls.This measure has been refined from supplying new gurneys to chairs to allow the gurneys to be utilized in the ambulances that have returned to service. McCormick Ambulance demonstrates a continuous effort to detect and correct service level performance deficiencies by identifying the reason for delayed response times,issuance of personnel performance notices when mandatory response requirements are not met,and the release of personnel upon continued performance issues.McCormick Ambulance also provides training and continuing education to staff to improve skills and service delivery. Although the emergency medical transport units were delayed in arriving on scene within the allowable timeframe for 12 calls in September 2021,patients were provided timely life-saving emergency medical care on scene by Los Angeles County Fire Department paramedics.When LACoFD arrive on scene,it takes paramedics 5 to 10 minutes to conduct the required treatment protocols prior to commencing transport with McCormick Ambulance During the patient treatment phase,the requested ambulance is typically on scene waiting for the paramedics to complete their treatment protocols even if the ambulance response is delayed.Los Angeles County Fire Department and McCormick Ambulance are committed to providing excellent emergency medical care,customer service, and response to the residents and visitors of Hermosa Beach. General Plan Consistency: This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below: Safety Element Goal 5. High quality police and fire protection services provided to residents and visitors. Policies: 5.2 High level of response.Achieve optimal utilization of allocated public safety resources and provide desired levels of response, staffing, and protection within the community. Fiscal Impact: Fire and ambulance services are contracted and accounted for during the annual budget process. Attachments: City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 4 of 5 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0667 1. Fire and ambulance monthly report - September 2021 Respectfully Submitted by: Brandy Villanueva, Emergency Management Coordinator Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 5 of 5 powered by Legistar™ E100 S100 Total FIRE, EXPLOSION 100 ‐ Fire, other 1              1 0.38% 118 ‐ Trash or rubbish fire, contained 1              1               2 0.75% FIRE, EXPLOSION Total 2              1               3 1.13% RESCUE, EMS 300 ‐ Rescue, emergency medical call (EMS) call, other 2              2               4 1.50% 311 ‐ Medical assist, assist EMS crew 2              1               3 1.13% 320 ‐ Emergency medical service, other 3              3               6 2.26% 321 ‐ EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 85            72              157              59.02% RESCUE, EMS Total 92            78              170              63.91% HAZARDOUS CONDITION 440 ‐ Electrical  wiring/equipment problem, other 1              1               2 0.75% HAZARDOUS CONDITION Total 1              1               2 0.75% SERVICE CALL 520 ‐ Water problem, other 1              1 0.38% 554 ‐ Assist invalid 1              1 0.38% SERVICE CALL Total 2              2 0.75% SPECIAL OR OTHER INCIDENT TYPE 900 ‐ Special type of incident, other 8              5                13                4.89% SPECIAL OR OTHER INCIDENT TYPE Total 8              5                13                4.89% GOOD INTENT CALL 600 ‐ Good intent call, other 27            15             42                15.79% 611 ‐ Dispatched & cancelled enroute 17            5                22                8.27% 651 ‐ Smoke scare, odor of smoke 1              1               2 0.75% GOOD INTENT CALL Total 45            21             66                24.81% FALSE ALARM, FALSE CALL 733 ‐ Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 2              2 0.75% 735 ‐ Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 4              1               5 1.88% 744 ‐ Detector activation, no fire ‐ unintentional 3              3 1.13% FALSE ALARM, FALSE CALL Total 9              1                10                3.76% Grand Total 159          107           266              100.00% Note: Data based on updated fireview ‐ apparatus 2021 data.  Hermosa Beach units responses. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT HERMOSA BEACH FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2021 Incident Type UNIT RESPONSES Percentage Submitted by Brandy Villanueva, Emergency Management Coordinator 1 DAY OF THE WEEK E100 S100 Total Sunday 25              17              42                Monday 22              17              39                Tuesday 23              13              36                Wednesday 20              14              34                Thursday 22              16              38                Friday 18              9 27                Saturday 29              21              50                Grand Total 159           107           266            Note: Data based on updated fireview ‐ apparatus 2021 data.  Hermosa Beach units responses. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT HERMOSA BEACH FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2021 UNIT RESPONSES  ‐  5  10  15  20  25  30  35 E100 S100 Submitted by Brandy Villanueva, Emergency Management Coordinator 2 TIME OF THE DAY E100 S100 Total 00:00:00 TO 00:59:59 6                 2                8                 01:00:00 TO 01:59:59 8                 3                 11              02:00:00 TO 02:59:59 7                 5                 12              03:00:00 TO 03:59:59 3                 1                4                 04:00:00 TO 04:59:59 3                 1                4                 05:00:00 TO 05:59:59 3                 3                6                 06:00:00 TO 06:59:59 5                 2                7                 07:00:00 TO 07:59:59 5                 3                8                 08:00:00 TO 08:59:59 4                 2                6                 09:00:00 TO 09:59:59 9                 6                 15              10:00:00 TO 10:59:59 6                 5                 11              11:00:00 TO 11:59:59 7                 5                 12              12:00:00 TO 12:59:59 9                 7                 16              13:00:00 TO 13:59:59 10              6                 16              14:00:00 TO 14:59:59 5                 3                8                 15:00:00 TO 15:59:59 9                  11             20              16:00:00 TO 16:59:59 11              7                 18              17:00:00 TO 17:59:59 9                 4                 13              18:00:00 TO 18:59:59 9                 8                 17              19:00:00 TO 19:59:59 7                 4                 11              20:00:00 TO 20:59:59 6                 2                8                 21:00:00 TO 21:59:59 7                 6                 13              22:00:00 TO 22:59:59 6                 6                 12              23:00:00 TO 23:59:59 5                 5                 10              Grand Total 159            107           266            Note: Data based on updated fireview ‐ apparatus 2021 data.  Hermosa Beach units responses. LOS ANGELES COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT HERMOSA BEACH FOR THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2021 UNIT RESPONSES  ‐  2  4  6  8  10  12 00:00:00 TO 00:59:5901:00:00 TO 01:59:5902:00:00 TO 02:59:5903:00:00 TO 03:59:5904:00:00 TO 04:59:5905:00:00 TO 05:59:5906:00:00 TO 06:59:5907:00:00 TO 07:59:5908:00:00 TO 08:59:5909:00:00 TO 09:59:5910:00:00 TO 10:59:5911:00:00 TO 11:59:5912:00:00 TO 12:59:5913:00:00 TO 13:59:5914:00:00 TO 14:59:5915:00:00 TO 15:59:5916:00:00 TO 16:59:5917:00:00 TO 17:59:5918:00:00 TO 18:59:5919:00:00 TO 19:59:5920:00:00 TO 20:59:5921:00:00 TO 21:59:5922:00:00 TO 22:59:5923:00:00 TO 23:59:59E100 S100 Submitted by Brandy Villanueva, Emergency Management Coordinator 3 Ad Hoc Report: Name: Date: Description: Seizure Date Seizure Time ALI City Answer Secs Call Type ID ALI Class 9/1/2021 11:21:28 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls BUSN 9/1/2021 13:27:07 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/1/2021 13:52:12 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/1/2021 17:59:29 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/1/2021 23:45:48 HERM BCH 1 911 Calls WPH2 9/2/2021 12:08:25 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls BUSN 9/3/2021 18:33:17 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/3/2021 18:33:47 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/4/2021 00:20:07 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls RESD 9/4/2021 01:05:45 HERM BCH 47 911 Calls WPH2 9/4/2021 01:21:52 HERM BCH 1 911 Calls WPH2 9/4/2021 07:20:34 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls VOIP 9/4/2021 12:32:00 HERM BCH 45 911 Calls WPH2 9/4/2021 19:46:37 HERM BCH 1 911 Calls WPH2 9/4/2021 20:27:20 HMB 5 911 Calls WPH2 9/5/2021 13:05:34 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/5/2021 15:19:21 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/5/2021 17:13:30 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/5/2021 19:56:37 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls RESD 9/5/2021 21:12:01 HMB 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/6/2021 10:14:32 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/6/2021 12:55:21 HMB 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/6/2021 18:31:13 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls BUSN 9/6/2021 21:41:53 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls VOIP 9/9/2021 00:00:03 HERMOSA BEACH 4 911 Calls RESD 9/9/2021 13:10:03 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls RESD 9/9/2021 16:56:37 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/10/2021 03:26:24 HERMOSA BEACH 5 911 Calls BUSN 9/10/2021 06:15:32 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls RESD 9/10/2021 15:03:15 HERM BCH 1 911 Calls WPH2 9/10/2021 15:38:23 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls BUSN 9/11/2021 01:11:51 HERM BCH 47 911 Calls WPH2 9/11/2021 15:32:28 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/12/2021 00:43:33 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls VOIP 9/12/2021 07:10:45 HERMOSA BEACH 48 911 Calls WPH2 9/12/2021 12:18:21 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/12/2021 15:10:43 HERMOSA BEACH 3 911 Calls WPH2 9/12/2021 20:17:08 HMB 34 911 Calls WPH2 9/13/2021 02:51:02 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls VOIP Hermosa Call Answer Time 10/1/2021 September 2021 Los Angeles County Fire Submitted by Brandy Villanueva, Emergency Management Coordinator 4 9/13/2021 09:05:38 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/14/2021 15:56:48 HMB 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/15/2021 04:50:17 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/15/2021 22:48:37 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls VOIP 9/16/2021 02:16:31 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls RESD 9/16/2021 13:51:20 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/16/2021 14:39:35 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/16/2021 15:22:21 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls VOIP 9/17/2021 11:32:02 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/18/2021 01:38:01 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/18/2021 08:59:27 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/18/2021 09:08:50 HERM BCH 36 911 Calls WPH2 9/20/2021 07:16:44 HERMOSA BEACH 8 911 Calls W911 9/20/2021 12:18:08 HERMOSA BEACH 9 911 Calls BUSN 9/20/2021 15:22:41 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls RESD 9/20/2021 16:15:14 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/22/2021 06:02:20 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/22/2021 08:58:03 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/22/2021 10:47:02 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/22/2021 11:58:49 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls RESD 9/22/2021 15:06:25 HB 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/22/2021 16:58:36 HERMOSA BEACH 18 911 Calls BUSN 9/22/2021 22:07:20 HMB 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/23/2021 13:05:43 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/24/2021 05:30:54 HERM BCH 47 911 Calls WPH2 9/24/2021 07:19:17 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls VOIP 9/24/2021 09:17:53 HERM BCH 10 911 Calls WPH2 9/24/2021 17:06:10 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/25/2021 10:49:20 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls RESD 9/25/2021 23:16:12 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/25/2021 23:16:14 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/26/2021 18:24:23 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls VOIP 9/26/2021 19:26:58 HERM BCH 3 911 Calls WPH2 9/28/2021 08:20:28 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls VOIP 9/28/2021 16:08:19 HMB 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/28/2021 17:09:50 HMB 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/28/2021 17:47:39 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/28/2021 18:39:55 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls BUSN 9/28/2021 22:08:06 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 9/30/2021 12:52:10 HERMOSA BEACH 2 911 Calls VOIP 9/30/2021 15:20:42 HMB 2 911 Calls W911 9/30/2021 16:18:47 HERM BCH 2 911 Calls WPH2 Average Call Answer Time (seconds)6 Submitted by Brandy Villanueva, Emergency Management Coordinator 5 McCormick Ambulance September 2021 Total Number of Dispatched Calls Dispatched Calls Totals Transported 76 Cancelled 43 Grand Total 119 NOTE: None 76, 64% 43, 36% Total Dispatched Calls Transported Cancelled Submitted by Brandy Villanueva, Emergency Management Coordinator 6 Calls per the day of the week Day of the Week Completed Cancelled Total Sunday 10 6 16 Monday 14 6 20 Tuesday 8 9 17 Wednesday 9 7 16 Thursday 11 3 14 Friday 8 4 12 Saturday 16 8 24 Grand Total 76 43 119 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Completed Canceled Submitted by Brandy Villanueva, Emergency Management Coordinator 7 Response by the Time of Day Time of Day Total Response 00:00:00 TO 00:59:59 3 01:00:00 TO 01:59:59 7 02:00:00 TO 02:59:59 5 03:00:00 TO 03:59:59 2 04:00:00 TO 04:59:59 0 05:00:00 TO 05:59:59 3 06:00:00 TO 06:59:59 2 07:00:00 TO 07:59:59 4 08:00:00 TO 08:59:59 1 09:00:00 TO 09:59:59 7 10:00:00 TO 10:59:59 5 11:00:00 TO 11:59:59 7 12:00:00 TO 12:59:59 8 13:00:00 TO 13:59:59 4 14:00:00 TO 14:59:59 3 15:00:00 TO 15:59:59 11 16:00:00 TO 16:59:59 9 17:00:00 TO 17:59:59 6 18:00:00 TO 18:59:59 8 19:00:00 TO 19:59:59 3 20:00:00 TO 20:59:59 4 21:00:00 TO 21:59:59 6 22:00:00 TO 22:59:59 6 23:00:00 TO 23:59:59 5 Grand Total 119 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 00:00:00 TO 00:59:5901:00:00 TO 01:59:5902:00:00 TO 02:59:5903:00:00 TO 03:59:5904:00:00 TO 04:59:5905:00:00 TO 05:59:5906:00:00 TO 06:59:5907:00:00 TO 07:59:5908:00:00 TO 08:59:5909:00:00 TO 09:59:5910:00:00 TO 10:59:5911:00:00 TO 11:59:5912:00:00 TO 12:59:5913:00:00 TO 13:59:5914:00:00 TO 14:59:5915:00:00 TO 15:59:5916:00:00 TO 16:59:5917:00:00 TO 17:59:5918:00:00 TO 18:59:5919:00:00 TO 19:59:5920:00:00 TO 20:59:5921:00:00 TO 21:59:5922:00:00 TO 22:59:5923:00:00 TO 23:59:59Time of Day Responses Submitted by Brandy Villanueva, Emergency Management Coordinator 8 Response Times Within Allowable Time Delayed Response Cancelled Total Code 3: Response Time of 8:59 or less 24 11 0 35 Code 2: Response Time of 15:00 or less 40 1 0 41 Cancelled Responses 0 0 43 43 Grand Total 64 12 43 119 Submitted by Brandy Villanueva, Emergency Management Coordinator 9 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 21-0649 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 ACTION SHEET OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 1, 2021 (Community Development Director Ken Robertson) Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council receive and file the action sheet of the Economic Development Committee meeting of November 1, 2021. Attachments: Action Sheet of the November 1, 2021 Economic Development Committee Meeting Respectfully Submitted by: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 City of Hermosa Beach Action Minutes - Draft Economic Development Committee Mary Campbell, Chair Peter Hoffman, Vice Chair Michael Detoy, Committee Member David Pedersen, Committee Member 6:00 PM Council Chambers (Virtually)Monday, November 1, 2021 ******************************************************************************************************* THIS MEETING IS HELD PURSUANT TO AB 361 (CHAPTER 165, STATUTES OF 2021) ISSUED BY GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM ON SEPTEMBER 16, 2021. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS MAY PARTICIPATE BY TELECONFERENCE/VIRTUAL MEETING DUE TO STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS RECOMMENDING MEASURES TO PROMOTE SOCIAL DISTANCING. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY PARTICIPATE BY TELECONFERENCE/VIRTUAL MEETING IN ORDER TO RESTRICT THE IMMINENT RISKS TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ATTENDEES. ******************************************************************************************************* 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Roll Call Chair Mary Campbell, Vice Chair Peter Hoffman and David PedersenPresent:3 - Michael DetoyAbsent:1 - All Economic Development Committee Members attended remotely. Also present remotely: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Christy Teague, Senior Planner Carlos Luis, Associate Planner Douglas Krauss, Environmental Programs Manager 4.REPORT 21-0661 Public Comments eComment from Anthony Higgins 10/30/21Attachments: Attending remotely to speak: None. a. eComment from Anthony Higgins 10/30/21 Page 1City of Hermosa Beach November 1, 2021Economic Development Committee Action Minutes - Draft The eComment from Anthony Higgins is discussed during the Public Comments section under Agenda Item 7. 5.REPORT 21-0654 Approval of the October 4, 2021 Economic Development Committee Action Minutes Action Minutes of the Economic Development Committee of October 4, 2021 Attachments: Motion by Vice Chair Hoffman and seconded by Committee Member Pedersen to approve the October 4, 2021 Economic Development Committee action minutes as presented. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 3 - Chair Campbell, Vice Chair Hoffman, and Member Pedersen Absent: 1 - Member Detoy 6.REPORT 21-0655 Stakeholder Advisory Working Group Summary of Meeting, Issues and Ideas Identified on October 6th and October 20th Stakeholder Meeting Notes from 10/06/21 Stakeholder Meeting Notes from 10/20/21 Attachments: a. Summary of Meeting, Issues and Ideas Identified on October 6th and October 20th b. The November meetings are cancelled for the Stakeholder Advisory Working Group. c. Identify Economic Development Committee Representatives on December 1st. Committee Member Pedersen will be the primary representative at the December 1st meeting and Chair Campbell will serve as the alternate representative. 7. Public Comments Attending remotely to speak: Laura Pena. Motion by Committee Member Pedersen and seconded by Vice Chair Hoffman to receive and file the written communication from Anthony Higgins, which was an attachment listed under agenda item 4. The motion carried by the following vote: Chair Mary Campbell, Vice Chair Peter Hoffman and David PedersenPresent:3 - Michael DetoyAbsent:1 - 8. Economic Development Strategy - Placemaking Page 2City of Hermosa Beach November 1, 2021Economic Development Committee Action Minutes - Draft a. Community Forum with training on Placemaking, including the City Council, Planning Commission, Public Works Commission, and Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission. b. The City to include community through public engagement for Placemaking projects design. 9.REPORT 21-0656 Draft Economic Development Strategy 1. Hermosa Beach Economic Development Strategy 11/01/21 2. Economic Development Strategy Actions Attachments: a. Introduction b. Priority Discussion 10. Business Recovery Updates a. Business Updates b. Temporary Outdoor Dining Permits and Lane Reconfigurations Attending remotely to speak: Douglas Krauss (Environmental Programs Manager). 11. Public Comments Attending remotely to speak: Ed Hart. 12. Committee Member Questions, Announcements, and Items for Next Agenda 13. Adjournment to the Next Meeting December 6, 2021 at 6:00 PM Chair Campbell adjourned the meeting at 7:36 PM. Page 3City of Hermosa Beach City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 21-0650 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 FINDINGS TO HOLD REMOTE TELECONFERENCE/MEETINGS, PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 361 (Interim City Clerk Susan Morrow) Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council authorize remote teleconference/virtual meetings of all City of Hermosa Beach legislative bodies in accordance with Assembly Bill 361 (“AB 361”),by finding that: (1)a statewide state of emergency is currently in place;(2)state and local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing in connection with COVID-19;and meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. Background: All meetings of the City’s legislative bodies are subject to the Ralph M.Brown Act (Gov.Code §§ 54950 et seq.)and must be open and public so that any member of the public may attend and participate in the meetings.Commencing in March of 2020,Governor Newsom issued a series of executive orders aimed at preventing the spread of a respiratory disease that came to be known as the novel coronavirus,“COVID-19.”Among these were Executive Orders (“EO”)N-25-20,N-29-20, and N-35-20 (collectively,the “Brown Act Orders”)that waived the teleconferencing requirements of the Brown Act to allow legislative bodies to meet virtually. On June 11,2021,the Governor issued EO N-08-21 to begin winding down some of the prior measures that were adopted to respond to COVID-19.Notably,EO N-08-21 rescinded the Brown Act Orders,effective September 30,2021.On September 16,2021,Governor Newsom signed AB 361,which became effective October 1,2021,and amended the Brown Act to allow legislative bodies to meet virtually,without following the Brown Act’s standard teleconferencing rules,provided that the legislative body makes specific findings, which include the following: 1.A statewide state of emergency is currently in place; 2.State or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing in connection with COVID-19; and/or 3.Meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. Continued compliance with AB 361 would require City Council to approve the action making theCity of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0650 Continued compliance with AB 361 would require City Council to approve the action making the required findings at least every 30 days. Discussion: All three findings under AB 361 can be made given the current circumstances.The Governor has proclaimed a state of emergency in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.The state of emergency currently remains in effect. Further,State officials,including the California Department of Public Health,have recommended measures to promote social distancing in connection with COVID-19,which are currently in place.Similarly,local officials,including the County Public Health Officer,have also recommended measures to promote social distancing in connection with COVID -19.In a recommendation dated September 28,2021,the County Public Health Officer stated that “utilizing teleconferencing options for public meetings is an effective and recommended social distancing measure to facilitate participation in public affairs and encourage participants to protect themselves and others from the COVID-19 disease.” Finally,the City has determined that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. Accordingly, all of the above-referenced AB 361 findings currently exist. If City Council thus desires to allow virtual meetings in order to both ensure the health and safety of the public,the legislative bodies of the City,and City staff,as well as continuity of government in allowing regularly-scheduled meetings to continue to occur without interruption,staff recommends City Council authorize virtual/teleconference meetings by making the findings set forth above. Alternative: If City Council does not make the findings pursuant to AB 361,the City would have to conduct its public meetings for City Council and other public boards and commissions in person and not have the option of conducting its meetings via teleconferencing. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. Attachments: 1. Link to Assembly Bill 361 Respectfully Submitted by: Susan Morrow, Interim City Clerk Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 21-0651 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 SECOND READING-ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 12.20.050 AND 12.28.010 OF TITLE 12 (STREET, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES) AND SECTION 6.08.020 OF TITLE 6 (ANIMALS), WHICH PERTAIN TO DOGS RUNNING UNLEASHED ON CITY PROPERTY AND CITY PARKS TO MAKE VIOLATIONS OF SUCH PROVISIONS SUBJECT TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION AND SET PENALTIES ACCORDINGLY (Interim City Clerk Susan Morrow) Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council waive full reading and adopt Ordinance 21-1439 by title. Executive Summary: The City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code currently prohibits animals,including dogs,on the beach,in Sea View (19th and Prospect)and Fort Lots-o-Fun (6th and Prospect)parks,on school grounds and in restaurants and markets,and further requires that dogs be leashed in other public spaces.Violation of these provisions is currently an infraction.The City Council will consider adopting an ordinance that updates the language in these provisions and changes the penalty for violation to an administrative penalty pursuant to Chapter 1.10 of the City’s Municipal Code.At its October 26, 2021 meeting,City Council adopted Resolution No.21-7297 amending the City’s Master Fee Resolution establishing an administrative penalty of $250 for violating these provisions. Background: The City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (“HBMC”) provides as follows: ·Section 12.20.050 prohibits animals on the beach; ·Paragraphs (U)and (V)of section 12.28.010 prohibits animals in Sea View (19th and Prospect) and Fort Lots-o-Fun (6th and Prospect) parks, and on active school grounds; ·Paragraph (A) of section 12.28.010 requires that dogs be leashed in other City parks; and ·Section 6.08.020 prohibits dogs in specified public places and otherwise requires that dogs be leashed when in public spaces. A violation of these HBMC sections is currently subject to an infraction.The proposed ordinance amends the foregoing sections to make a violation of these sections subject to an administrative City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0651 amends the foregoing sections to make a violation of these sections subject to an administrative penalty pursuant to Chapter 1.10 of the City’s Municipal Code and amends Section 1.10.040 “Code Violations”to add the above enumerated sections to the list of provisions that are subject to the City’s administrative penalty procedures.This is consistent with State policy that encourages less serious Municipal Code violations to be decriminalized,streamlines enforcement and results in a positive financial impact for the City, as the fines are not shared with the courts. The proposed decriminalization of the above enumerated violations is consistent with HBMC section 17.32.050 “Presence of dogs restricted,”which requires dogs to be leashed on the Greenbelt,subject to an administrative penalty, thereby creating consistency across the Code. The proposed ordinance further amends the HBMC to exempt “service animals”(as defined in the Ordinance)from the prohibition of animals in specified areas.Finally,the ordinance updates and modernizes the language in the enumerated sections. At its regular meeting on October 26,2021,City Council adopted Resolution 21-7297 amended the City’s Master Fee Resolution-Resolution No.16-7045-to establish the administrative penalty amount of two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00)for violating each of the above enumerated sections, regardless of how many times a person violates these provisions within a twelve-month period. City Council approved the introduction of the ordinance by the following vote: Ayes:Councilmembers Jackson,Campbell,Armato,Mayor Pro Tem Detoy,and Mayor Massey Noes:None Absent:None Abstain:None Past Council Action Meeting Date Description October 26, 2021 First Re ading of Ord inance 21 -149 6 Am ending HBMC pertain ing to animals being maintained and unleashed in areas within the city subjecting violat ors to an administrative penalty . Fiscal Impact: This action would generate some revenue as penalties are assessed to violators;however,the main objective of the administrative penalties is to encourage compliance,not to generate revenue.No estimate of the potential revenue has been undertaken at this point.Any revenue associated with the administrative penalties will be estimated once staff is able to determine the number of administrative City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0651 administrative penalties will be estimated once staff is able to determine the number of administrative penalties.In addition,there would be a cost-shift from the courts to the City as City staff would perform the administrative tasks involved to bring matters to a close,post issuance of citations.The administrative tasks for which there are costs include invoicing,collections,scheduling of hearings, and the cost of the hearing officer. Attachments: 1.An Ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach,California,Amending Municipal Code Sections 12.20.020 and 12.28.010 of Title 12 (Streets,Sidewalks,and Public Places)and Section 6.08.020 of Title 6 (Animals),which Pertain to Animals Being Maintained and Unleashed within the City,Subjecting Violations to an Administrative Penalty and Amending Section 1.10.040 of Title 1 (General Provisions) to Set Penalties Accordingly. Respectfully Submitted by: Susan Morrow, Interim City Clerk Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 21-0671 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.74 (MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS) OF TITLE 5 (BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS), AND OTHER SPECIFIED CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE PROVISIONS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE HEREIN, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CHAPTER 7.54 (MASSAGE) OF DIVISION 2 (SPECIFIC BUSINESSES) OF TITLE 7 (BUSINESS LICENSES), CHAPTER 11.36 (MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS) OF DIVISION 1 (HEALTH CODE) OF TITLE 11 (HEALTH AND SAFETY), AND ARTICLE 2 (SIGNS) OF PART 8 (MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS) OF CHAPTER 8.04 (PUBLIC HEALTH LICENSES) DIVISION 1 (PUBLIC HEALTH LICENSES) OF TITLE 8 (CONSUMER PROTECTION, BUSINESS AND WAGE REGULATIONS) OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE, WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (City Attorney Michael Jenkins) Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council: 1.Introduce for first reading an ordinance titled,“An Ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach, Amending Chapter 5.74 (Massage Therapy Business)of Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations),and other Specified City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections for Consistency with the Provisions Adopted by Reference Herein,and Adopting by Reference Chapter 7.54 (Massage)of Division 2 (Specific Businesses)of Title 7 (Business Licenses), Chapter 11.36 (Massage Establishments)of Division 1 (Health Code)of Title 11 (Health and Safety),and Article 2 (Signs)of Part 8 (Massage Establishments)of Chapter 8.04 (Public Health Licenses)of Division 1 (Public Health Licenses)of Title 8 (Consumer Protection, Business and Wage Regulations)of the County of Los Angeles Municipal Code,with Certain Amendments thereto,and Finding the Same Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; and 2.Set a public hearing for December 14, 2021, to consider and to adopt the Ordinance. Executive Summary: The City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code currently regulates Massage Therapy Businesses pursuant to Chapter 5.74 of its Municipal Code.The City desires to adopt by reference certain City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0671 pursuant to Chapter 5.74 of its Municipal Code.The City desires to adopt by reference certain provisions of the Los Angeles County Municipal Code that pertain to the regulation of Massage Establishments, with amendments thereto. Background: The County of Los Angeles Department of Health has requested in its August 20,2021 letter,that the City of Hermosa Beach (“City”)adopt by reference Los Angeles County Ordinance No.2020- 0008,which amended Titles 7,8 and 11 of the Los Angeles County Code pertaining to regulation of massage establishments,in order to achieve Countywide uniformity in the enforcement of regulations intended to eradicate unlawful behavior, including prostitution and sex trafficking. Pursuant to Government Code Section 50022.1 et seq.the City of Hermosa Beach (“City”)may adopt by reference any portion of the Los Angeles County Code.The City currently regulates “Massage Therapy Businesses”pursuant to Chapter 5.74 of its Municipal Code.The County’s regulations of such businesses identified as “Massage Establishments”are more robust.For example,the County’s definition of “massage establishment”is defined more broadly to also include any business that offers ay combination of a massage and bath facilities such as showers, baths,wet and dry heat rooms,pools and hot tubs.The County’s regulations also have more stringent operating requirements and require that notice that human trafficking is prohibited be posted in a conspicuous place. The City desires to amend Chapter 5.74 of its Municipal Code,to adopt by reference specified provisions of the County’s Massage Establishment regulations,with certain amendments thereto. The majority of the amendments to the County’s Massage Establishment Ordinance were made to change references to County officials,departments and codes to relevant City officials, departments and codes.Notably,the City’s amendments would not require “Massage Technicians”(as defined in the County Massage Establishment Regulations)to obtain a business license.Under the proposed ordinance,persons performing massage services for compensation are required to obtain a certificate from the California Massage Therapy Council (“CAMTC”).The CAMTC is a massage therapy organization authorized to issue certifications pursuant to the Massage Therapy Act (California Business and Professions Code Section 4600 et seq.)Thus,a separate license is not necessary,since persons performing massage services for compensation at these establishments are required to obtain a certificate pursuant to the provisions of Massage Therapy Act. Nor would the City require Massage Establishments to also obtain a health permit as a condition precedent to operate.Under the proposed ordinance however,Massage Establishments would continue to be regulated by the Los Angeles County Health Department,which requires the establishments to abide by the County Health Department’s health and safety laws applicable to its business.Further,under the proposed ordinance,the Finance Department may conduct inspections or utilize and rely on the Police Department,Code Enforcement or other City officialsCity of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0671 inspections or utilize and rely on the Police Department,Code Enforcement or other City officials responsive for the health,safety and welfare of the public to conduct inspections of the establishment to ensure compliance with licensing and operating requirements therein. Additionally,the City would retain its existing licensing procedure for such businesses as currently codified in Chapter 5.74,and require such businesses to obtain a Conditional Use Permit before any location and building may be used for this purpose. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact to the City associated with the recommended action. Attachments: 1.An Ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach,Amending Chapter 5.74 (Massage Therapy Business)of Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations),and other Specified City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections for Consistency with the Provisions Adopted by Reference Herein,and Adopting by Reference Chapter 7.54 (Massage)of Division 2 (Specific Businesses)of Title 7 (Business Licenses),Chapter 11.36 (Massage Establishments)of Division 1 (Health Code)of Title 11 (Health and Safety),and Article 2 (Signs)of Part 8 (Massage Establishments)of Chapter 8.04 (Public Health Licenses)of Division 1 (Public Health Licenses)of Title 8 (Consumer Protection,Business and Wage Regulations)of the County of Los Angeles Municipal Code,with Certain Amendments thereto,and Finding the Same Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Respectfully Submitted by: Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ 65270.00001\34509360.2 ORDINANCE NO. ___ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER 5.74 (MASSAGE THERAPY BUSINESS) OF TITLE 5 (BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS), AND OTHER SPECIFIED CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE PROVISIONS ADOPTED BY REFERENCE HEREIN, AND ADOPTING BY REFERENCE CHAPTER 7.54 (MASSAGE) OF DIVISION 2 (SPECIFIC BUSINESSES) OF TITLE 7 (BUSINESS LICENSES), CHAPTER 11.36 (MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS) OF DIVISION 1 (HEALTH CODE) OF TITLE 11 (HEALTH AND SAFETY), AND ARTICLE 2 (SIGNS) OF PART 8 (MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS) OF CHAPTER 8.04 (PUBLIC HEALTH LICENSES) OF DIVISION 1 (PUBLIC HEALTH LICENSES) OF TITLE 8 (CONSUMER PROTECTION, BUSINESS AND WAGE REGULATIONS) OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE, WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND FINDING THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Findings A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 50022.1 et seq. the City of Hermosa Beach (“City”) may adopt by reference any portion of the Los Angeles County Code. B. The County of Los Angeles Department of Health has requested in its August 20, 2021 letter, that the City adopt by reference Los Angeles County Ordinance No. 2020-0008, which amended Titles 7, 8 and 11 of the Los Angeles County Code pertaining to regulation of massage establishments, in order to achieve Countywide uniformity in the enforcement of regulations intended to eradicate unlawful behavior, including prostitution and sex trafficking. C. The City Council conducted its first reading of this ordinance on November 9, 2021 and notice of a public hearing on this ordinance was published in the Easy Reader on ____, 2021 and ___, 2021. D. The City Council held a public hearing on ___ 2021, as required by law, at which time the Council determined that the adoption of portion of the Los Angeles County Code and amendments thereto pertaining to the regulation of massage establishments is in the best interests of the City and is based on the findings required by law. E. At least one copy of the provisions of the Los Angeles County Code adopted by reference by this ordinance were available for public inspection at the office of the 65270.00001\34509360.2 City Clerk fifteen (15) days preceding the public hearing pursuant to Government Code Section 50022.6. Section 2. Chapter 5.74 of Title 5 of the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 5.74.010 Adoption of the Massage Establishment Ordinance. Title 7, Division 2, Chapter 7.54 “Massage”, Title 11, Division 1, Chapter 11.36 “Massage Establishments”, and Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 8.04, Part 8, Article 2 “Signs”, of the Los Angeles County Code, as amended and in effect on ___ are hereby adopted by reference, subject to the amendments set forth herein, and shall henceforth collectively be known as the “Massage Establishment Ordinance” of the City of Hermosa Beach. 5.74.020 Copies filed. A certified copy of Title 7, Division 2, Chapter 7.54 “Massage” Title 11, Division 1, Chapter 11.36 “Massage Establishments”, and Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 8.04, Part 8, Article 2 “Signs”, of the Los Angeles County Code, as adopted in Section 5.74.010, has been deposited in the office of the City Clerk and shall be at all times maintained by the City Clerk for use and examination by the public. 5.74.030 Amendments. A. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, whenever any of the following names or terms are used, each such name or terms shall be deemed and construed to have the meaning ascribed to it in this section as follows: “Board of Supervisors” shall mean and refer to the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach. “Business License Commission” shall mean and refer to the City Finance Department. “Los Angeles County” and “County” shall mean and refer to the City of Hermosa Beach. “Tax Collector” shall mean and refer to the City Finance Department. “Sheriff’s Department” shall mean and refer to the Police Department of the City of Hermosa Beach “Title 7 Division 1” shall mean and refer to Section 7.54.020 of this Chapter. B. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 7.54.005 is amended to read as follows: 65270.00001\34509360.2 In enacting the City of Hermosa Beach Massage Establishment Ordinance, the City Council finds that preventing and addressing human trafficking is a top priority for the City. Violations of the law in the areas of public health, wage and labor and general public safety are often an integral part of human trafficking. The City recognized that when operated professionally and in accordance with the law, Massage Establishments provide valuable health and therapeutic services to the public. However, unregulated Massage Establishments provide an opportunity for illegal activity including vice crimes with links to human trafficking. The ordinance, and its various provision, collectively seek to curb and prevent the potential for human trafficking and other abuses in Massage Establishments through a combination of enhanced business licensing requirements, including but not limited to inspections, reporting requirements and other operational restrictions as well as existing law enforcement and coordination. C. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 7.54.010 “Definitions” is amended to read in full as follows: A. "California Massage Therapy Council" or "CAMTC" means the massage therapy organization authorized to issue certifications pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code Section 4600 et seq., the Massage Therapy Act. B. "Massage Establishment" means any business that offers "massage," "massage services," or "massage therapy," including, but not limited to, reflexology, fomentations, shiatsu, alcohol rubs, Russian, Swedish, Turkish baths, or acupressure or any combination thereof in exchange for compensation at a fixed place of business. Any business that offers any combination of massage and bath facilities - including, but not limited to, showers, baths, wet and dry heat rooms, pools and hot tubs - shall be deemed a Massage Establishment under this Chapter. This definition excludes a gymnasium/health and fitness center, school, barber/beauty shop, or similar establishment where massage or similar manipulation of the human body is offered by an individual as an incidental or accessory service and does not occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the area of the establishment. This definition also specifically excludes adult massage as defined in Section 17.04.060. C. "Massage," "massage services," or "massage therapy" means the scientific manipulation of the soft tissues or as otherwise defined in Division 2 Chapter 10.5 of the Business and Professions Code. D. "Sole Proprietor," as used in this Chapter, means a Massage Establishment where the owner owns 100 percent (100%) of the business and is the only person who provides massage services for compensation 65270.00001\34509360.2 pursuant to either a valid and active CAMTC certificate or a valid massage technician license. A Sole Proprietor has no employees or independent contractors providing massage services E. "Massage Therapist" means a person who is certified by the CAMTC under Section 4604 of the California Business and Professions Code administering massage for compensation. F. "Massage Practitioner" means a person who is certified by the California Massage Therapy Council under Section 4604.1 and 4604.2 of the California Business and Professions Code administering massage for compensation. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, paragraphs (A)-(B) of Section 7.54.020 “License—Required” is amended to read in full as follows: A. Every person owning or operating a Massage Establishment in the City as defined in this section shall procure a business license set forth in this Chapter, including an owner, manager or operator of a massage therapy business who does not practice massage therapy, and every designated Responsible Massage Therapist who will be responsible for managing or operating the business. B. Every person desiring to obtain a business license as required by this Chapter shall make an application to the City Finance Department. The applicant shall provide all of the following: i. The full name, residence address, business address, and telephone numbers of the applicant, and the name under which the proposed business is to be conducted; ii. The full name, business address, residence address, and telephone numbers of any copartners, excluding limited partners, of the applicant; iii. The full name, residence address, business address, and telephone numbers of the property owner, in which the business is to be located, and the written consent of said owner to the operation of the business or a copy of the lease for the premises executed by the owner evidencing such consent; iv. Applicant’s height, weight, color of eyes and hair, age, and date and place of birth; v. A two-inch square photograph of the applicant taken within sixty (60) days immediately prior to the date the application is filed; 65270.00001\34509360.2 vi. A statement in writing by the applicant that he or she certifies, under penalty of perjury, that all information contained in the application is true and correct; vii. Such other identification and information as the Police Chief may require in order to discover the truth of the matters set forth in the application, including the right to take fingerprints, any additional photographs or to confirm the height and weight of the applicant; viii. Record of any conviction of violation of law, excluding minor traffic violations; ix. The nature, name and place of applicant’s business or employment during the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of the filing of the application; x. If the applicant submits satisfactory evidence that the individual is (1) a Massage Therapist or a Sole Massage Proprietor, or (2) that all persons providing massage therapy service at the business, including are State certified, then the applicant shall not be required to provide the information in subsections (vii) through (x) above. E. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 7.54.020 and 7.54.030 are excluded. F. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 7.54.050 “Prerequisites to License Issuance, Renewal, Denial, Suspension, or Revocation” is amended to read in full as follows: Section 7.54.050 “Conditions for Issuance of Business License.” The City shall issue or renew the business license only when all of following conditions are met (A) A completed written application form has been filed; (B) The required application fee has been paid; (C) The applicant has complied with all provisions of this Chapter and of the Municipal Code; (D) The building and facilities are found to contain all of the elements necessary to comply with Section 7.54.080 and to comply with all of the health, zoning, fire, building and safety requirements and standards of the State of California and of the City; 65270.00001\34509360.2 (E) The applicant has not made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement in the application or in any report or record filed therewith; (F) The applicant has not had a permit or license for a similar type business revoked by the City or any other jurisdiction within the past three years; and (G) A determination has been made by the Chief of Police that the applicant and any employee, agent, partner, director, officer, shareholder, associate, manager or any other person connected with the business for which the applicant is requesting a business license hereunder: (1) Has not been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction of a violation of Penal Code Sections 266I, 315, 316, 318, or 647(b); (2) Has not been convicted in any other State of any offense which, if committed or attempted in this State, would have been punished as one or more of the above mentioned offenses; and (3) Is not required to register under the provisions of Penal Code Section 290. (H) If the applicant submits satisfactory evidence that the individual is (1) a Massage Therapist or (2) a Sole Proprietor, or that all persons providing massage therapy service at the business, are State certified, then subsection (G) of this Section shall not apply, only to the extent that the information requested pertains to the person who is a Massage Therapist. G. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 7.54.060 “Massage Services Performed by Unlicensed Massage Technicians and Non-CAMTC-Certified Massage Technicians is Prohibited” is amended to read in full as follows: “Massage Services Performed by non-CAMTC-Certified Massage Therapists is Prohibited.” After the effective date of this ordinance, massage services performed by non-CAMTC certified Massage Therapists is prohibited. A licensee or person required to obtain a Massage Establishment business license pursuant to section 7.54.020 of this Chapter shall not allow massage services to be performed by a Massage Therapist who is not CAMTC certified. 65270.00001\34509360.2 H. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, paragraph (B) of Section 7.54.070 “Inspections for Licensing and Enforcement” is amended to read in full as follows: (B) For purposes of the enforcement of this Title and all other applicable provisions of this Code, the Finance Department may conduct inspections or utilize and rely on the Police Department, Code Enforcement or other City officials responsive for the health, safety and welfare of the public to conduct the foregoing inspections. I. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, paragraph (N) of section 7.54.080 “Establishment Operating Requirements” is amended to read in full as follows: N. Contemporaneously with each massage service provided, every Massage Establishment shall keep a complete and legible written or electronic record of the following information: (1) the date and hour that service was provided; (2) the service provided; (3) the name or initials of the employee or independent contractor entering the information; and (4) the name of the Massage Therapist, as defined in Section 7.54.010, administering the service. These records shall be open to inspection and copying by City officials for purposes of enforcing the City’s Code. These records may not be used for any purpose other than as records of service provided and may not be provided to other parties by the Massage Therapist or establishment operator unless otherwise required by law. Such records shall be retained on the premises of the Massage Establishment for two (2) years and be immediately available for inspection during business hours. J. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, Section 7.54.095 “Prohibited Advertising” shall read in full as follows: No Massage Establishment shall cause to be placed, published, or distributed, including on the internet, any advertising that would reasonably suggest to prospective clients that any service is available other than those services listed as an available service pursuant to Section 7.54.080, nor shall any Massage Establishment employ language in the text of such advertising that would reasonably suggest to a prospective client that any service is available other than those services as described in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. No person providing massage services shall advertise in any manner or form that massage is provided for compensation unless a valid license is possessed as required by Section 7.54.020 or is CAMTC certified. Massage Establishments shall not advertise in any manner or form indicating the business provides massage for compensation unless the Massage Establishment possesses a business license pursuant to this Chapter. 65270.00001\34509360.2 K. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 7.54.100 “Posting Requirements for Massage Establishments and Massage Technicians” shall read in full as follows: Posting Requirements for Massage Establishments Each Massage Establishment shall post in a conspicuous public place the business license issued pursuant to this Chapter. The CAMTC certificate of each and every employee or independent contractor performing massage, massage services, or massage therapy shall be on display in the reception area or similar open public place on the premises. CAMTC certificates of each and every employee or of former employees and or independent contractors are to be removed as soon as those employees or independent contractors are no longer employed by or offering services through the Massage Establishment. L. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 7.54.130 is excluded. M. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 7.54.160 “Hours of Operation” is amended to read in full as follows: The licensee shall not conduct or operate a massage parlor between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any day, or other hours as established by the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 17.40.160 of the City’s Code, and shall exclude all customers, patrons and visitors therefrom between those hours. N. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 7.54.200 is excluded. O. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 7.54.210 “License—Required and Two-Year Compliance Requirements” is amended to read in full as follows: “License Required” A CAMTC license is required for all persons performing massage services in any establishment. P. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, Section 7.54.230, 7.54.240 and 7.54.250 is excluded.is excluded. Q . Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 7.54.270 “Identification—Required” is amended to read in full as follows: 65270.00001\34509360.2 Documentary proof of CAMTC certification or a picture identification issued by the City Finance Department shall be worn and clearly visible by all persons providing massages during working hours and at all times when the Massage Therapist is in the Massage Establishment. R. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 7.54.280 “Manager Required” is amended to read in full as follows: All Massage Establishments licensed under this Title shall have a manager at the Massage Establishment at all times when open to the public for business, except Sole Proprietors. "Manager" means the person(s) designated by the owner or operator of the Massage Establishment to act as the representative or agent of the owner or operator in managing day-to-day operations. The manager must be familiar with the requirements of the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and State laws related to massage therapy, and be capable of communicating, in any language or format, the provisions of State law and City Code related to massage therapy to employees, independent contractors, and patrons of the Massage Establishment. S. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 7.54.290 shall read in full as follows: To operate as a Massage Establishment in the City, the business must have a valid business license in addition to any other licenses, permits, or certifications required by applicable City ordinances, the City’s municipal code and State laws. T. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, paragraph (C) of section 7.54.300 is excluded. U. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, Section 7.54.310 “Massage Establishment Location—Conditional Use Permit Required” is added to read in full as follows: Before any location and building may be used for the purposes of a massage therapy business, a Conditional Use Permit shall be obtained pursuant to Chapter 17.40 of the Zoning Code. V. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 8.04.1510 is excluded. W. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 8.4.1520 “List of Services” is amended to read in full as follows: A list of services available, minimum duration of the service and the cost of such services shall be displayed in a conspicuous place within the 65270.00001\34509360.2 reception area of the Massage Establishment. No owner, operator, or manager shall offer any service other than those displayed or listed as required herein, nor shall owner or operator request or charge a fee for any service other than those on the list of services available and displayed in the reception area. X. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 8.04.1530 “Prohibited Advertising” is amended to read in full as follows: A. No Massage Establishment shall cause to be placed, published or distributed, including on the internet, any advertising that would reasonably suggest to prospective clients that any service is available other than those services listed as an available service pursuant to Section 7.54.320 nor shall any Massage Establishment employ language in the text of such advertising that would reasonably suggest to a prospective client that any service is available other than those services as described in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. No person providing massage services shall advertise in any manner or form that massage is provided for compensation unless a valid license is possessed as required under this Chapter or is CAMTC certified as applicable. B. No Massage Establishment shall cause to be published or distributed, including on the internet, any advertising or services that would violate this Chapter. Y. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 8.04.1550 is excluded. Z. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, sections 11.36.010, 11.36.020 and 11.36.030 are excluded. AA. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 11.36.070 “Attire Requirements” is amended to read in full as follows: All Massage Therapists shall meet the attire requirements specified in the California Business and Professions Code section 4609, subdivision (a)(10). All other employees, independent contractors, and owners of the Massage Establishment shall remain fully clothed in clean outer garments while on the premises of the Massage Establishment. At a minimum, such clothing shall be made of non-transparent material and shall cover the entirety of the torso area from above the chest to the knee. BB. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 11.36.090 “CAMTC Certification—Required” is amended to read in full as follows: A. CAMTC-certification or a picture identification issued by the City Finance Department shall be worn by and clearly visible on the 65270.00001\34509360.2 Massage Therapist’s person during working hours and at all times when the Massage Therapist is in the Massage Establishment. B. Owners operators, Massage Therapists and employees of the Massage Establishment shall not engage in lewd conduct on business premises of the Massage Establishment. Lewd conduct means touching the genitals, buttocks, or female breast of either the owner, operator, employee, or customer with some part of the other person's body for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. CC. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 11.36.100 “Manager—Required” is amended to read in full as follows: While open, all Massage Establishments licensed under section 7.54.020, except Sole Proprietors, shall have a manager as defined in Section 7.54.280 on the premises. The manager must be familiar with and capable of communicating with employees, independent contractors, and patrons of the establishment on the requirements of this Chapter and State law as it related to massage therapy. DD. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, paragraph (A) of section 11.36.120 “Cleanliness” is amended to read in full as follows: A. Instruments used for massage shall be disinfected prior to each use. Where such instruments for massage are employed, adequate quantities of supplies for disinfection shall be available during all hours of operation. EE. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, paragraphs (E), (F), (I) and (J) of section 11.36.140 “Operating Requirements” are amended to read in full as follows: E. A Massage Establishment owner shall notify the City Finance Department, of any changes to the owner's address and/or phone number. F. A Massage Establishment owner shall report to the City Finance Department, any of the following within ninety-six (96) hours of the occurrence: 1. Arrests of any employees, independent contractors, or owners of the Massage Establishment for an offense other than a misdemeanor traffic offense; 2. Any event involving the Massage Establishment owner or an employee employed therein that constitutes a violation of this ordinance or State or federal law; 65270.00001\34509360.2 3. Any provision which requires reporting to the City Finance Department even if the Massage Establishment owner believes that the City Finance Department has or will receive the information from another source. I. A copy of the CAMTC certificate of each and every employee and/or independent contractor shall be displayed in the reception area or similar open public place on the premises. CAMTC certificates of former employees and/or independent contractors shall be removed as soon as employees are no longer employed by or offering services through the massage business. J. For each massage service provided, every massage business shall keep a complete and legible written or electronic record of the following information: (1) the date and hour that service was provided; (2) the service provided; (3) the name or initials of the employee entering the information; and (4) the name of the Massage Therapist administering the service and the CAMTC certificate number, and business license identification number. Such records shall be open to inspection and copying by the Sheriff's Department, or other officials charged with enforcement of this Chapter. These records may not be used by any Massage Therapist or operator for any purpose other than as records of service provided and may not be provided to other parties by the Massage Therapist or operator unless otherwise required by law. Such records shall be retained on the premises of the massage business for a period of two (2) years and be immediately available for inspection during business hours. FF. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 11.36.190 is amended to read in full as follows: Any City of Hermosa Beach officials, including but not limited to the City’s Police Department, Code Enforcement or other City officials responsive for the health, safety and welfare of the public to conduct the following inspections, shall have the right to enter the premises from time to time during regular business hours to make reasonable inspections to observe and enforce compliance with building, fire, electrical, plumbing or health regulations, and to enforce compliance with applicable regulations, laws, and statutes. GG. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, paragraph (B) of section 11.36.160 is amended to read in full as follows: B. Adequate dressing rooms shall be provided for patrons. Dressing rooms will be used only by patrons of the same sex at the same time. Dressing rooms need not be separate from the room in which the 65270.00001\34509360.2 massage is being performed. If the massage takes place without disrobing of patrons, then separate dressing rooms are not required for each patron. A location for each patron served to safely store their valuables shall be provided such as a locker. HH. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, section 11.36.200 “Abatement” is amended to read in full as follows: Any Massage Establishment operated or maintained in a manner contrary to the requirements of this Chapter or as deemed by the City’s Police Department, Code Enforcement or other City officials responsive for the health, safety and welfare of the public, is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance. II. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 5.74.010 of this Chapter, sections 11.36.210, 11.36.220 and 11.36.230 is excluded. 5.74.040. Penalties. The violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter or regulations adopted pursuant hereto shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable as provided in Section 1.04.020. 5.74.050. Nuisance. In addition to the penalties hereinabove provided, the violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter or regulations adopted pursuant hereto shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil process means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunctions or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances as provided in Section 1.04.050(C). Section 4. The following City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code sections are amended to replace the reference to “Massage Therapy” with “Massage Establishment”. A. Paragraph (9) “Miscellaneous businesses”, of Section 5.04.200. B. Section 17.40.160 “Massage therapy business”. C. Section 17.26.030 “C-1, C-2 and C-3 land use regulations”. D. Section 17.38.540 “Plan are no. 11—Uses” E. The definition of “Large Day Spa” in section 17.04.050. Section 5. The definition of “Massage Therapy” in section 17.04.050 “Commercial land use definitions” of the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 65270.00001\34509360.2 "Massage Establishment" means any business that offers "massage," "massage services," or "massage therapy," including, but not limited to, reflexology, fomentations, shiatsu, alcohol rubs, Russian, Swedish, Turkish baths, or acupressure or any combination thereof in exchange for compensation at a fixed place of business. Any business that offers any combination of massage and bath facilities - including, but not limited to, showers, baths, wet and dry heat rooms, pools and hot tubs. This definition excludes a gymnasium/health and fitness center, school, barber/beauty shop, or similar establishment where massage or similar manipulation of the human body is offered by an individual as an incidental or accessory service and does not occupy more than twenty-five (25) percent of the area of the establishment. This definition also specifically excludes adult massage as defined in Section 17.04.060. Section 6. Environmental Review. The City Council finds that adoption and implementation of this ordinance is not a “project” for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as that term is defined by CEQA guidelines (Guidelines) sections 15061(b)(3), and 15378(b)(5). The effect of the proposed amendment will be to maintain the status quo. No new development will result from the proposed action. No impact to the physical environment will result. The City Council also alternatively finds that the adoption and implementation of this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of CEQA as an administrative activity by the City of Hermosa Beach, that will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment, per sections 15061(b)(3), and 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines, as well as CEQA Guidelines section 15064(e) (economic regulations). Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared unconstitutional. Section 8. Pursuant to California Government Code section 36937, this ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. Section 9. The City Clerk is directed to insert the date of adoption of this Ordinance in Section 2 hereinabove. Section 10. The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City of Hermosa Beach’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law. 65270.00001\34509360.2 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this __th day of _________________, 2021. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: _______________________________________ MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: ___________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ City Attorney City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 21-0611 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 HEARING APPEAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR HERMOSA SALOON (Finance Director Viki Copeland) Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council: 1.Deny the appeal from the Hermosa Saloon,LLC for a change of business classification for purposes of the license tax pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 5.04.200(A) (6) Schedule of Business Taxes; and 2.Affirm that the Hermosa Saloon is taxed at the appropriate classification of bar and restaurant with alcohol,closing after 12:00 a.m.five days or more per week based on the most recent information provided by the appellant. Executive Summary: The purpose of this hearing is for City Council to hear and adjudicate the contention put forth by Hermosa Saloon’s appeal (Attachment 1)that the business is not properly classified for business license tax purposes.The City classifies the Hermosa Saloon as a “bar”and places it in the category of bar and restaurant with alcohol,closing after 12:00 a.m.five days or more per week,at an annual tax rate of $6,016.The City’s interpretation of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC)is that a “bar”and a “restaurant with alcohol”are two separate and distinct uses listed in Section 5.04.200(A) (6)Schedule of Business Taxes (Attachment 2),and both are taxed the same.The Hermosa Saloon,LLC owner,Kenneth Garmoe,agrees that the Hermosa Saloon is a bar (and not a restaurant),but he contends that the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code does not have an explicit tax classification for “bars.”To make his argument,he conflates the words “bar”and “restaurant with alcohol”in the category into a single use (i.e.a “bar and restaurant”),namely,restaurants that serve alcohol.Therefore,in his appeal,he contends that the business should pay the tax for “all retail businesses not expressly listed in another category” at the lower amount of $212. Background: An abbreviated list of contacts between staff and Mr. Garmoe follows: City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 7 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0611 ·Staff sent the Hermosa Saloon tax renewal notices on June 24, 2020 and July 16, 2020; ·On November 16,2020,Mr.Garmoe contacted staff claiming that his business has been misclassified for tax purposes since the passage of Ordinance 11-1330,Enacting a Comprehensive Restructuring and Update to the Business Tax Ordinance (Attachment 3) and was erroneously made to pay a higher tax rate.He stated that his business is a bar and that under the older code he was not classified as a restaurant,but as a bar and paid a lower amount; ·Finance Cashier staff,and the Finance Cashier Supervisor,both advised Mr.Garmoe that his business was classified correctly; ·In November 2020,the Finance Cashier Supervisor contacted Mr.Garmoe to inform him of the passage of Executive Order 2020-12 that deferred taxes for businesses impacted by the pandemic; ·On December 17,2020,after consultation with the City Attorney,the Finance Director contacted Mr.Garmoe to reiterate the City’s position that his business is properly classified. Guidance was also provided to him regarding accessing the Business License Tax Committee’s records after he indicated that he planned to perform his own research on the matter; ·On May 12,2021,staff became aware that the Hermosa Saloon was open and called and emailed Mr.Garmoe to remind him that the business tax was due.Mr.Garmoe reiterated that he believed that the Hermosa Saloon was misclassified and would not pay; ·In July 2021,staff made a follow-up call to ensure Mr.Garmoe was aware of the tax due and the refund available for the business license expiring June 30,2020 under the recently passed Executive Order 2021-15; ·On July 8,2021,upon Mr.Garmoe’s request,the Finance Director sent a letter to Mr.Garmoe summarizing the City’s position with regard to his classification; and ·On August 19,2021,Mr.Garmoe informed the Finance Director that he had retained counsel and was formally requesting an appeal hearing.Pursuant to HBMC 5.04.310 (Attachment 4) a hearing before the City Council was set for October 26,2021 and later,at Mr.Garmoe’s request, continued to this evening. Pursuant to HBMC 5.04.120 (Attachment 5),staff responded to the claim by reviewing the Hermosa Saloon’s business license records,alcohol license type,legislative history of the business tax ordinance,the City’s Municipal Code,Schedule of Tax,and record of communications with the owner. Additionally,staff consulted with the City Attorney and concluded that the business is properly classified as a “bar”and properly falls within the category of “bar and restaurant with alcohol,closing after 12:00 a.m.five days or more per week”and finds no merit in the claim.The HBMC clearly taxes bars and restaurants as separate uses in the same tax category. Analysis: Review of the Hermosa Saloon’s business license records discloses the following: City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 2 of 7 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0611 ·The Hermosa Saloon is located at 211 Pacific Coast Highway; ·The Hermosa Saloon was issued an alcohol license type 48 On-Sale General -Public Premises by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)on July 8,2011. The definition of the license is:(Bar,Night Club)Authorizes the sale of beer,wine and distilled spirits for consumption on the premises where sold.Authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption off the premises where sold.Minors are not allowed to enter and remain (see Section 25663.5 for exception, musicians). Food service is not required; ·The business license was first issued on August 18,2011,under the previous business license ordinance,and was classified as B23-B Restaurant w/liquor w/entertainment -less than 2,000 square feet; and ·On June 28,2012,upon renewal of the license,the Hermosa Saloon’s classification was changed to “bar and restaurant with alcohol,closing after 12:00 a.m.five days or more per week”and has continued to be classified as such to the present day.The change in classification was made after the voters of Hermosa Beach confirmed and approved the new tax structure at the Municipal General Election of November 8, 2011. Land uses are defined in the City’s zoning ordinance,Title 17 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. Multiple uses come within the broad category of alcohol serving uses defined in Section 17.05.050 (Attachment 6): “Alcohol Beverage Establishment,On-Sale."On-sale alcohol beverage establishment"means sale of alcoholic beverages (beer,wine,spirits)for consumption on the premises whether in conjunction with a restaurant,or as a bar or cocktail lounge or in conjunction with a nightclub (see definition of "restaurant").” Under this definition, an “On-sale Alcohol Beverage Establishment” may either be: 1) A restaurant; 2) A bar or cocktail lounge; or 3) A nightclub. The distinguishing characteristics of these three distinct alcohol beverage-serving uses are: 1)Restaurants primarily serve food,but may also serve alcohol.Sections 17.26.060 (Attachment 7)and 17.40.080 set forth an elaborate set of regulations governing restaurants depending on whether they serve alcohol at all,whether they close before 10:00 p.m.,whether they limit alcohol sales to beer and wine,whether they are open after 11:00 p.m.and whether they serve full alcohol.Restaurants are licensed by the ABC with a type 47 license; 2)Bars and cocktail lounges are not obliged to serve food along with alcohol.They are issued a type 48 license by the ABC.Both the City and the owner agree that the Hermosa SaloonCity of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 3 of 7 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0611 a type 48 license by the ABC.Both the City and the owner agree that the Hermosa Saloon is a bar; and 3) Nightclubs serve alcohol and provide entertainment. They may or may not serve food. What is clear under the zoning ordinance is that a restaurant that serves alcohol and a bar,are separate and distinct uses.Put another way,a bar is not a “restaurant with alcohol.”And,the phrase “restaurant with alcohol”is a term of art in the zoning ordinance with a specific meaning.There is no use anywhere in the zoning ordinance called “bar and restaurant with alcohol.”The business tax classifications set forth in Title 5 must be read in conjunction with the definitions used in Title 17 (the zoning ordinance),because that is where the various land uses are defined.In short,the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is read and interpreted as a single, integrated document. The language in Ordinance 11-1330 was developed through a lengthy process involving members of the City Council and business owners known as the Business License Tax Review Committee.The Committee met to review the business tax structure from December 2011 thru July 2011.During that time,the Committee considered several proposals and classification methodologies.The final tax structure proposal was provided to the City Council at its July 12,2011 meeting and did not include a separate tax classification for bars. At its July 26,2011 meeting,City Council considered the Committee’s recommendations and adopted a resolution to place on the ballot of the general election of November 8,2011 and a proposed ordinance enacting a comprehensive restructuring and update of the business tax ordinance.At that meeting,the proposed language for the Food and Beverage category was the subject of Council discussion.The videotape of the meeting shows that the City Attorney pointed out to Council that,as written,the Committee’s language would not tax a bar that did not serve food.He asked if Council’s intent was to include bars in the same taxing category as restaurants that serve alcohol.Council responded in the affirmative.The City Attorney then suggested the language change to add “bars” and told them this would “close the loophole.”The Council changed the classification to read ‘Bar and Restaurant with alcohol’rather than simply ‘Restaurants with alcohol’.The attached minutes of the July 26,2011 meeting (Attachment 8)reflect this exchange between the City Attorney and the Council and the Council’s direction. The link to the videotape referenced is Attachment 9. Thus,the Council’s action to specifically change the committee’s language by adding “bars”to the tax category that included “restaurants with alcohol”clearly shows the Council’s unmistakable understanding that “bars”are separate and distinct from restaurants and its clear legislative intent to tax bars in the same category as restaurants with alcohol.The respective tax schedules are shown below. Business License Tax Review Committee Final Proposal for Food and Beverage, July 12, 2011: City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 4 of 7 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0611 The proposal was slightly amended as shown below and it (along with the schedule above) was presented to City Council at its July 26, 2011 meeting: The City Council adopted the Schedule of Tax shown below for the November 8,2011 General Election, adding a specific reference to “Bar”: The current Schedule of Tax shown below reflects the annual Cost of Living adjustments applied to date pursuant to HBMC 5.04.0230 (Attachment 10): City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 5 of 7 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0611 The existing business tax code was approved by the City Council at its July 26,2011 meeting and subsequently confirmed and approved by the voters of Hermosa Beach at the Municipal General Election of November 8, 2011. Ordinance 11-1330 (Attachment 3)changed the HBMC section 5.04.200(A)(6)Schedule of Taxes Food and Beverage tax rate classifications to: ·Restaurant without alcohol; ·Bar and restaurant with alcohol closing before 12:00 a.m.; ·Bar and restaurant with alcohol,closing after 12:00 a.m.three (3)days or less per week (specific days must be identified in business tax certificate); ·Bar and restaurant with alcohol,closing after 12:00 a.m.four (4)days per week (specific days must be identified in business tax certificate); ·Bar and restaurant with alcohol,closing after 12:00 a.m.five (5)days or more per week (specific days must be identified in business tax certificate); and ·Food and/or beverage with drive through operation (maximum tax of eight thousand dollars ($8,000). In the second through fifth categories above,the distinct uses of “bar”and “restaurant with alcohol” are separated by the conjunction “and.”Grammatically speaking,the conjunction links independent or equal clauses in a single sentence.The Hermosa Saloon’s attorney interprets the phrase “bar and restaurant with alcohol”as constituting a single use.This is not correct.First,that interpretation would be redundant.Second,it is belied by the legislative history of Ordinance 11-1330,which unmistakably shows that the 2011 Council intended to add “bars”to the classification so that they could be taxed at the same rate as “restaurants with alcohol.”Third,it is not supported by a plain reading of the language.Fourth,it is not supported by the definitions of the food and beverage uses in the zoning ordinance, which treats “bars and cocktail lounges” as a separate use from restaurants. Given that the existing HBMC clearly does tax bars the same as restaurants,staff recommends City Council deny the appeal from the Hermosa Saloon,LLC for a change of business classification for purposes of the license tax pursuant to Chapter 5.04.200,Schedule of Business Taxes;and affirm that the Hermosa Saloon,LLC is taxed at the appropriate classification of bar and restaurant with alcohol,closing after 12:00 a.m.five days or more per week based on the most recent information provided by the appellant. General Plan Consistency: PLAN Hermosa,the City’s General Plan,was adopted by the City Council in August 2017.The use of a business tax structure developed in conjunction with the Business Tax Committee is consistent with City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 6 of 7 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0611 PLAN Hermosa goals and policies that are listed below: Governance Element Goal 1. A high degree of transparency and integrity in the decision-making process. Policies: ·1.4 Consensus oriented. Strive to utilize a consensus-oriented decision-making process. ·1.7 Diversity of representation.Strive to reflect a comprehensive cross-section of the community in appointments to Commissions and Advisory Committees. Fiscal Impact: Staff recommends the City continue to classify the Hermosa Saloon as a “bar”and place it in the category of bar and restaurant with alcohol,closing after 12:00 a.m.five days or more per week,at an annual tax rate of $6,016,and deny the appeal that the business should pay the tax for “all retail businesses not expressly listed in another category”, at the lower annual tax rate of $212. Attachments: 1.Appeal from S.C.Johnson &Associates,P.C.,representing Hermosa Saloon LLC and Kenneth Robert Garmoe 2.HBMC, Section 5.04.200(A)(6) Schedule of business taxes. 3.Ordinance 11-1330,Enacting A Comprehensive Restructuring and Update to the Business Tax Ordinance 4.HBMC, Section 5.04.310 Appeals 5.HBMC, Section 5.04.120 Determination of type or class of business 6.HBMC, Section 17.04.050 Commercial land use definitions 7.HBMC,Section 17.26.060 Restaurants with on-sale alcoholic beverages limited to beer and wine, closing at 10:00 p.m. or earlier-- Standards and limitations 8.City Council Meeting Minutes, July 26, 2011 9.Regular City Council Meeting July 26, 2011 (Item 6a Advance to 2:24:45) 10.HBMC, Section 5.04.230 Annual cost of living adjustment of taxes Respectfully Submitted by: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Concur: Michael Jenkins, City Attorney Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 7 of 7 powered by Legistar™ S. C. Johnson & Associates, P.C. 703 Pier Ave. #703 Hermosa Beach, California 90254 Telephone: (310) 339-4417 Facsimile: (218) 419-2287 Stephen@scjohnsonlaw.com October 28, 2021 Ms. Suja Lowenthal Hermosa Beach City Manager 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 RE: Hermosa Saloon Business Misclassification Dear Ms. Lowenthal: This office represents Hermosa Saloon LLC and Kenneth Robert Garmoe (“Hermosa Saloon”). Hermosa Saloon hereby appeals from Viki Copeland’s arbitrary and capricious decision to misclassify the Hermosa Saloon as a bar and restaurant for purposes of calculat ing its city tax rate. Hermosa Saloon is not a “bar and restaurant.” It does not serve food. The crucial distinction between a “bar and restaurant” serving both food and drink and a “bar” that does not serve food is recognized by the State of California, Los Angeles County and even the City of Hermosa Beach Code enforcement. The distinction has been ignored only by Ms. Copeland in attempt to tax the Hermosa Saloon at a higher rate than is allowed under the business classification scheme voted into law by the citizens of Hermosa Beach in 2011 through passage of Proposition N. Under the business classification system implemented by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, “bars and restaurants” fall into classification “47.” Bars fall into classification “48.” The Hermosa Saloon’s California State issued liquor license is a classification 48 license. (A copy of a report from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control dated October 28, 2021 is attached hereto as Ex. A.) The Hermosa Saloon is the only classification 48 establishment in the City of Hermosa Beach. The primary difference between a “bar and restaurant” and a “bar” is that category 47 restaurants that serve food and alcohol are open to customers of all ages and generate revenue from the sale of both food and drink. No one under the age of 21 years can even enter the Hermosa Saloon. The distinction drawn at the state level between bars and bars and restaurants has been particularly critical during the COVID-19 pandemic. Governor Newsom’s office and the California Department of Public Health ordered the closure of all bars for 15 consecutive months. Restaurants and bars serving food and drink were not subject to identical closure orders. ATTACHMENT 1 - Appeal from S.C. Johnson & Associates, P.C., representing Hermosa Saloon LLC and Kenneth Robert Garmoe Lowenthal, Suja S.Johnson, Esq. October 28, 2021 Page 2 SCJHBSKG (A representative California Public Health announcement ordering a closure specific to “bars” is attached as Ex. B.) The distinction between establishments serving only alcohol and those serving food and drink is also recognized at the County level. Bars that do not sell food are issued a “low risk health permit.” The Hermosa Saloon is a low -risk establishment. Just as is the case at the state level, COVID-19 restrictions at the county level have hit bars the hardest. On May 5, 2021, the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health issued a 15 page “Protocol for Restaurants” and an entirely different 12 page “Protocol for Bars.” On September 28, 2021 the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health retired those protocols in favor of a further order distinguishing between bars and “bars and restaurants.” Section 11 f. of September 28, 2021 order is specific to bars; section 11 g. is specific to restaurants. At the most basic leve l, bars must require patrons to provide verification of vaccinations; restaurants need not. (The 9/28/2021 order effective 10/7/2021 is attached as Ex. C.) Worst of all, Hermosa Beach city officials have subjected the Hermosa Saloon to draconian COVID-19 restrictions because it cannot and does not serve food even as it seeks to lump the Hermosa Saloon in with high-revenue restaurants for tax purposes. The City vigorously opposed the Hermosa Saloon’s request to construct an outdoor seating area precisely because the Hermosa Saloon is not licensed to serve food. The Hermosa Saloon has been misclassified as a bar and restaurant for years. Mr. Garmoe has unsuccessfully reached out to the city on three prior occasions. Mr. Garmoe requested a written explanation only now that he has been singled out for such disparate treatment during this pandemic. Ms. Copeland’s letter of July 8, 2021 is attached as Exhibit D. As you can see, the letter provides no explanation whatsoever. It is not enough to say that the Hermosa Saloon has been classified as a bar and restaurant because it has been classified as a bar and restaurant. The business classification system used for tax purposes in Hermosa Beach was expressly approved by Hermosa Beach voters in 2011 through passage of Proposition N. Then Councilman Kit Bobko, who served on the tax review committee along with three local business owners and Councilman Peter Tucker championed the system because it "is one page, simple, easily understood." https://patch.com/california/hermosabeach/business-tax- panels-plan-moves-forward The classification system was voted into law to generate revenue to off-set the costs associated with downtown congestion. It was never intended to raise taxes for a bar that is not located in the downtown area, does not attract any diners, and is not patronized by anyone under the age of 21. Hermosa Beach voters adopted a system that is carefully tailored to impose different tax rates on certain specific businesses. Many types of businesses are expressly identified. The initiative also made clear that “[a]ll retail establishments not expressly listed in another category” would pay a fee in line with rates charged in other beach cities. As of July 1, 2019, such retailers – like the Hermosa Saloon – were to be taxed $205 per year. Lowenthal, Suja S.Johnson, Esq. October 28, 2021 Page 3 SCJHBSKG Hermosa Saloon respectfully requests confirmation that it is properly characterized, for tax purposes, as a “retail establishment not expressly listed in another category” establish by the voters of Hermosa Beach in 2011. Very truly yours, Stephen C. Johnson, Esq. Encl. Cc: Kenneth Garmoe Ex. A License Details I Alcoholic Beverage Control MEMBER: GARMOE, KENNETH ROBERT LICENSE TYPES 48 -ON-SALE GENERAL PUBLIC PREMISES License Type Status: Status Date: Term: Original Issue Date: Expiration Date: Master: Duplicate: Fee Code: Transfers: ACTIVE 04-NOV- 2020 12 Month(s) 08-JUL- 2011 30-JUN- 2022 y 0 PO From License Number: 48-8077 https://www.abc.ca.gov/licenslng/license-lookup/slngle-llcense/?RPTTYPE=12&L1CENSE=511069 10/28/21, 11 :39 AM Page 2 of 4 License Details I Alcoholic Beverage Control Transferred On: No Operating Restrictions found No Active Disciplinary Action found Reg. Number: 14080564 Section: Section: Section: Proceeding Status: De cision: Suspension Days: Stayed Days: ht t ps :/ /www.abc.ca.gov/I ice nsi ng/li ce nse-lookup/slng le-I I cense/? R PTTY PE= 12 & l IC ENSE = 51 106 9 10/28/21, 11:39 AM Page 3 of 4 License Details I Alcoholic Beverage Control HOLDS: No Active Holds found 31-JUL- 2014 15-AUG- 2014 ESCROWS: No Escrow found https://www.abc.ca.gov/licensing/license-lookup/slngle-llcense/?RPTTYPE;12&L1CENSE;511069 10/28/21, 11:39 AM Page 4 of 4 At least it did, 1'1 I eeted that re staurants ir 1 1 , ,'. y it is critical to t 1:18 PM• Jun 28, 2020 v 687 lj} s h est C VIID -1I9 i, ,form tion on Twitter we t y 1r rep 1 1v More than 1,700 people are currently ho spitalized with COVID-1 9 in L.A. Co dai\y hospital izations seen in recet t weeks, according to the L.A. County Pi peo pl e testin g positive has also increased from 8 to 9 percent. At least 40 I amon g peo ple 18 to 40 years old. Ex.B COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEAL TH OFFICER RESPONDING TOGETHER AT WORK AND IN THE COMMUNITY BEYOND THE BLUEPRINT FOR A SAFER ECONOMY, HIGH TRANSMISSION - ENCOURAGING COVID-19 VACCINATION COVERAGE WITH MODERATE RISK REDUCTION MEASURES Issue Date: Tu e sday, September 28, 2021 Effective as of 11 :59pm on Thursday, October 07, 2021 Brief Highlights (Changes highlighted in yellow): •Clarifies that starting November 1, 2021, operators of Outdoor Mega Events are required to cross-check proof of full vaccination or negative COVID-19 viral test result against a photo identification for all attendees who are 18 years of age or older. Please read this Order carefully. SUMMARY OF THE ORDER: Since June 15, 2021 and after the retiring of the State's Blueprint for a Safer Economy, community transmission of COVID-19 in Los Angeles County has rapidly increased from Low to High. Based on continuously high daily new cases of COVI D-19 to a level that indicates High community transmission of the COVID-19 virus, based on the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicators, this Order continues to require masking by all, regardless of vaccination status, in an effort to slow the continuously high trends in and level of transmission of COVID-19 currently being seen in Los Angeles County. This Order mainly aligns with the State Public Health Officer Order of June 11, 2021 and continues to place certain safety requirements on individuals consistent with federal and state rules. Further, this Order incorporates by reference the July 26, 2021 Order of the State Public Health Officer, which requires specific transmission prevention measures to be taken by Acute Health Care and Long-Term Care settings, High-Risk Congregate settings, and Other Health Care settings. In addition, this Order continues to require that all persons wear face masks while in indoor public settings and businesses, with limited exceptions, as a precautionary measure with this High level of community transmission. On July 28, 2021, the CDC, and the California Department of Public Health each issued new guidance validating the universal indoor masking requirements of this Order. The CDC's Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People advises that "preliminary evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people who do become infected with the Delta variant can spread the virus to others" and therefore recommends that fully vaccinated people should wear a mask in indoor settings if they are in a [geographic] area where there is Substantial or High rates of COVID-19 community transmission. Moreover, the State Public Health Officer recommended universal masking, regardless of vaccination status, in public indoor settings across California. The State Public Health Officer explained that universal indoor masking "adds an extra precautionary measure for all to reduce the transmiission of COVID-19, especially in communities currently seeing thehighest rates of transmission." In addition, this Order continues some requirements on businesses and government entities, such as a general requirement to report positive cases in the workplace and in schools, a requirement for signage, and a proof of vaccination or testing negative for COVID-19 Responding Together at Work and In the Community Beyond The Blueprint For A Safer Economy, High Transmission-Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage with Limited Risk Reduction Measures Revised 9/28/2021 Page laf 15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER requirement to admit people to attend Indoor and Outdoor Mega Events. Also, this Order includes best practice recommendations to reduce COVID-19 risk for individuals, businesses, and government entities. COVID-19 daily cases and community transmission remain high; on September 28, 2021 alone, Los Angeles County reported 1,147 new cases. As of September 21, 2021, and although the test positivity rate and hospitalizations have declined or appear to be stable, Los Angeles County is also reporting a 7-day daily average case rate of 12.9 cases per 100,000 people. This indicates a continued and high risk of COVID-19 infection for those who are not or cannot be vaccinated against COVID-19. Based upon federal CDC indicators and thresholds, this means that community transmission of COVID-19 within the County of Los Angeles Is now High, and highly likely to increase during the coming weeks as we start to move into the Winter months when respiratory viruses, like influenza and SARS-CoV-2, have spread more easily. Even though more people in Los Angeles County and the region are vaccinated against the virus that causes COVID-19, there remains a risk that people may come into contact with others who may have COVID-19 when outside their residence. There are millions of people in Los Angeles County who are not yet vaccinated against COVID-19, including children under 12 years old who are not currently eligible to be vaccinated, and people who are immuno-compromised and may be particularly vulnerable to infection and disease. Most COVID-19 infections are caused by people who have no or mild symptoms of infection. Variants of the virus that spread more easily or cause more severe illness remain present and have increased in our County. In the absence of physical distancing requirements for the public and capacity limits for indoor and outdoor settings, unvaccinated and partially vaccinated persons are more likely to get infected and spread the virus, which is transmitted through the air and concentrates in indoor settings. We have also seen surges in our County and in other parts of the country and the world, continuously impacting younger adults. At this time, the current COVID-19 vaccines are effective at helping to reduce the risk of getting and spreading the infection and also of getting seriously ill even if a fully vaccinated person gets COVID-19, including against the current variants of the virus that causes COVID-19. Although no vaccine is 100 percent effective at preventing illness In vaccinated people, the currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines remain the best form of protection against COVID-19. Vaccinations remain widely avai lable to those 12 years and older. The best way to reduce the current level of community transmission and to prevent future surges is for everyone who is eligible, including those who have recovered from a COVID-19 infection, to get fully vaccinated as soon as possible. People at risk for severe illness with COVID-19, such as unvaccinated older adults and unvaccinated individuals with health risks, and members of their households are strongly urged to get vaccinated against COVI0-19 as soon as they can if they have not already done so. Those who are not fully vaccinated are urged to adhere to both the required and recommended risk reduction measures. We must remain vigilant against variants of the virus that causes COVID-19, especially given High levels of transmission here and in other parts of the world and due to the possibility of a new variant being identified for which the current COVID-19 vaccines may not be effective. Currently, the Delta variant remains predominant in Los Angeles County. The Delta variant is Responding Together at WM and in the Community Beyond The Blueprint For A Safer Economy, High Transmission-Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage with Limited Risk Reduction Measures Revised 9/28/2021 Page2of 1S Ex.C COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER two times as contagious than early COVID-19 variants and continues to lead to increased infections. Further, recent data suggests that the immune response to COVID-19 vaccination might be reduced in some immunocompromised people, which increases their risk of serious health consequences from COVID-19 infection. It is, therefore, prudent to require continued indoor masking for all as an effective public health measure to reduce transmission between people. This Order is issued to help slow and improve the High level of community transmission of COVID-19 here in Los Angeles County. This Order's primary intent is to reduce the transmission risk of COVID-19 in the County for all, especially those who are not fully vaccinated and fully vaccinated but immunocompromised persons, in the absence of other protective measures, like physical distancing requirements and capacity limits. Accordingly, this Order allows Businesses, schools, and other activities to remain open while at the same time putting in place certain requirements designed to (1) limit transmission risk of COVID-19 and (2) contain any COVID-19 outbreaks. This Order will be revised in the future, if needed, to reflect the State Executive Orders, California Division of Occup ational Safety and Health's (better known as Cal/OSHA) worksite requirements, State Public Health Officer Orders and guidance, and CDC recommendations. Should local COVID-19 conditions warrant, the County Health Officer may, after consultation with the Board of Supervisors, issue Orders that are more restrictive than those of the State Public Health Officer. This Order is effective within the County of Los Angeles Public Health Jurisdiction, defined as all cities and unincorporated areas within the County of Los Angeles, with the exception of the cities of Long Beach and Pasadena that must follow their respective City Health Officer orders and guidance. This Order is effective at 11 :59pm on Thursday, October 07, 2021 and will continue until further notice. UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF CALIFORNIA HEAL TH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 101040, 101085, AND 120175, THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES HEAL TH OFFICER ORDERS: 1.This Order supersedes the Health Officer's Prior Order. 2.This Order's intent is to continue to protect the community from COVID-19, in particular forthose who are not or cannot be fully vaccinated 1 against COVID-19 In the County, in theabsence of other protective measures and to increase vaccination rates to reduce spread ofCOVID-19 long-term, so that the whole community is safer and the COVID-19 pandemic cancome to an end. Failure to comply with any of the Order's provisions constitutes an imminentthreat and menace to public health, and a public nuisance, and is punishable by citation orfine. ' People are considered "fully vac cinated" against COVID-19 two weeks or more after they have received the second dose In a 2-dose series (e.g., Pfizer-BloNTech or Modema) or 2 weeks or more after they have received a single-dose vaccine (e.g., Johnson and Johnson [J&JVJanssen). Responding Together at Work and In the Community Beyond The Blueprint For A Safer Economy, High Transmission-Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage with Limited Risk Reductlon Measures Revised 9/28/2021 Page3 af15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER a)This Order does not supersede any stricter limitation imposed by a local public entity within the County of Los Angeles Public Health Jurisdiction. The Order is consistent with existing authority that local health jurisdictions may implement or continue morerestrictive public health measures if the jurisdiction's Local Health Officer determines that health conditions in that jurisdiction warrant such measures. Where a conflict exists between this Order and any State Public Health Officer Order related to controlling the spread of COVID-19 during this pandemic, the most restrictive provision controls, unless the County of Los Angeles is subject to a court order requiring it to act on, or enjoining it from enforcing, any part of this Order. 3.All persons living within the County of Los Angeles Public Health Jurisdiction should continueto practice required and recommended COVID-19 infection control measures at all times and when among other persons when in community, work, social or school settings, especially when multiple unvaccinated persons from different households may be present and in close contact with each other, especially when in indoor or crowded outdoor settings. 4.Face Masks. All individuals must follow the requirements included in both the requirements of this Order and the July 28, 2021 Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings issued by theCalifornia Department of Public Health. a)These requirements are aligned with July 28, 2021 recommendations issued by theCDC.The CDC recommendations provide information about both indoor and higher risk settings where masks are required or recommended to prevent transmission to: i.Persons with a higher risk of infection (e.g., unvaccinated or immunocompromised persons), ii.Persons with prolonged, cumulative exposures (e.g., workers), or iii.Persons whose vaccination status is unknown. When people wear a mask correctly, they protect others as well as themselves. Consistent and correct mask use is especially important indoors and outdoors when in close contact with (less than six feet from) others who are not fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or whose vaccination status is unknown. b)Masks are required to be worn by everyone, regardless of COVID-19 vaccination status, in the following settings: i.On public transit (examples: airplanes, ships, ferries, trains, subways, buses,taxis, and ride-shares), ii.In transportation hubs (examples: airport, bus terminal, marina, train station, seaport or other port, subway station, or any other area that provides transportation), iii.Indoors in K-12 schools, childcare and other youth settings, iv.Healthcare settings (including long term care facilities), v.State and local correctional facilities and detention centers, vi.Homeless shelters, emergency shelters, and cooling centers, Responding Together at Work and in the Community Beyond The Blueprint For A Safer Economy. High Transmission-Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage with Umited Risk Reduction Measures Revised 9/28/2021 Page4of1S COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER vii.All indoor public settings, venues, gatherings, and public and privatebusinesses (some examples: offices, manufacturing, warehouses, retail, foodand beverage services, theaters, family entertainment centers, meetings, andstate and local government offices serving the publ ic, Indoor Mega Events,among others), and viii.Outdoor Mega Events. c)Recommendation for higher level of protection: In indoor public and private settingswhere there is close contact with other people who may not be fully vaccinated,individuals should consider wearing a higher level of protection, such as wearing twomasks ("double masl(jng") or a wearing a respirator (e .. g., KN95 or N95). This isparticularly important if an individual is not fully vaccinated and is in an indoor orcrowded outdoor setting. d)Individuals, businesses, venue operators or hosts of public indoor settings, venues,gatherings, and businesses, and Outdoor Mega Events must: i.Require all patrons, customers, and guests to wear masks when inside at allindoor settings and at Outdoor Mega Events, regardless of their vaccinationstatus; and ii.Post clearly visible and easy to read signage, with or without having anemployee present, at all entry points for indoor and outdoor settings tocommunicate the masking requirements for patrons, customers, and guests. e)For clarity, patrons, customers, or guests at public indoor settings, venues, gatherings,and public and private businesses, and at Outdoor Mega-Events are required to weara face mask except while: i.Actively eating or drinking, which is the limited time during which the mask canbe removed briefly to eat or drink, after which it must be immediately put backon. Patrons, customers, or guests must be seated at a table or positioned at astationary counter, ticketed seat, or place while actively eating or drinking. ii.Showering or engaging in personal hygiene or a personal care service thatrequires the removal of the face mask; iii.Alone in a separate room, office or interior space; f)Special considerations are made for people with communication difficulties or certaindisabilities. Clear masks or cloth masks with a clear plastic panel that fit well are analternative type of mask for people who interact with: people who are deaf or hard ofhearing, children or students learning to read, people learning a new language, andpeople with disabilities. g)All businesses, venue operators or hosts must implement measures to clearlycommunicate to non-employees the masking requirements on their premises. h)No person can be prevented from wearing a mask as a condition of participation in anactivity or entry into a business. i)The categories of persons who are exempt from mask requirements remainunchanged at this time and can be found athttp://publichealth .lacounty.gov/acd/ncorona2019/masks/#no tw ear. In workplaces, Responding Together at Work and in the Community Beyond The Blueprint For A Safer Economy, High Transmission-Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage with Limited Risk Reduction Measures Revised 9/28/2021 PageSoflS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER certain employees may be exempt from wearing a mask when performing specific tasks which cannot feasibly be performed while wearing a mask. This exception is limited to the period of time in which such tasks are actually being performed. Workers who ca nnot feasibly wear a mask while performing their work must be tested for COVID-19 at least twice per week, unless the employer is provided proof of the employee's full vaccination against COVID-19 or proof of recovery from laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 within the past 90 days against COVID-19. j)In workplaces, most employers and businesses are subject to the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) and some to the Cal/OSHA AerosolTransmissible Diseases Standards, and should consult those regulations foradditional applicable requirements. The ETS allow local health jurisdictions to requiremore protective mandates. This County Health Officer Order, which requires maskingof all individuals at indoor public settings and businesses, and Outdoor Mega-Events,regardless of vaccination status, is a such a mandate in Los Angeles County, andoverrides the more permissive ETS regarding employee2 masking. k)All employers and businesses subject to Cal/OSHA must review and comply with theactive Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS). Asapproved and effective, the full text of the COVID-19 Prevention emergency standardswill be listed under Title 8. Subchapter 7, sections 3205-3205.4 of the California Codeof Regulations. All businesses or employers with independent contractors should alsoreview the State Labor Commissioner's Office webpage entitled, "Independentcontractor versus employee", which discusses the "employment status· of personshired as independent contractors, to ensure correct application of the ETS. 5.Mandatory Reporting by Businesses and Governmental Entitles. Persons andbusinesses within the County of Los Angeles Public Health Jurisdiction must continue tofollow the COVID-19 infection control protocols and guidance provided by the CountyDepartment of Public Health regarding isolation of persons confirmed or suspected to beinfected with the virus that causes COVID-19 disease or quarantine of those exposed to andat risk of infection from COVID-19. In instances where the County has not provided a specificguidance or protocol, specific guidance or protocols established by the State Public HealthOfficer shall control. a)In the event that an owner, manager, or operator of any business knows of three (3)or more cases of COVID·19 among their employees within a span of 14 days, theemployer must report this outbreak to the Department of Public Health at (888) 397-3993 or (213) 240-7821, or online at www.redcap.link/cov idreport. b)In the event that an owner, manager, or operator of any business is informed that oneor more employees, assigned or contracted workers, or volunteers of the businesshas tested positive for, or has symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (case), theemployer must have a protocol to require the case(s) to isolate themselves at homeand require the immediate self-quarantine of all employees that had a workplaceexposure to the case(s). 2 Some independent contractors are considered as employees under the State Labor Code. For more details, check the CaUfomia Department of Industrial Relations' Independent contractor versus empjoyee webpage. Responding TOf!ether at Work and In the Community Beyond The Blueprint For A Safer Economy, High Transmission-Encou raging COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage with Limited Risk Reduction Measures Revised 9/28/2021 Page6of 15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER 6.LACDPH Best Practice Guidance. All individuals and Businesses are strongly urged to follow the LACDPH Best Practice Guidance, containing health and safety recommendations for COVID-19. 7.Considerations for Persons at Higher Risk for Negative Health Outcomes: At this time, people at risk for severe illness or death from COVID-19-such as unvaccinated older adults and unvaccinated individuals with health risks-and members of their household, should defer participating in activities with other people outside their household where taking protective measures, including wearing face masks and social dista ncing, may not occur or will be difficult, especially indoors or in crowded spaces. For those who are not yet fully vaccinated, staying home or choosing outdoor activities as much as possible with physical distancing from other households whose vaccination status is unknown is the best way to prevent the risk of COVID-19 transmission. 8.Encourage Activities that Can Occur Outdoors. All Businesses and governmental entities are urged to consider moving operations or activities outdoors, where feasible and to the extent allowed by local law and permitting requirements, because there is generally less risk of COVID-19 transmission outdoors as opposed to indoors. 9.Ventilation Guidelines. All Businesses and governmental entities with Indoor operations are urged to review the Ventilation Guidelines and implement ventilation strategies for indoor operations as feasible. See California Department of Public Health Interim Guidance for Ventilation, Filtration and Air Quality in Indoor Environments for detailed information. Nothing in this Order limits any ventilation requirements that apply to particular settings under federal, state, or local law. 1 O. High-Risk Health Care and Congregate Settings. This Order incorporates by reference the State Public Health Officer Order of July 26, 2021, which req uires additional statewide facility-directed measure to protect particularly vulnerable populations. The Order is found here: State Public Health Officer Order issued July 26, 2021 11. Sectors that Continue to Require Additional Risk Reduction Measures. The following sectors serve persons and populations that have lower rates of vaccination, who are at higher risk of being infected, or who are not yet eligible to be vaccinated. As such, these sectors continue to require additional risk reduction measures and must operate subject to the following conditions listed below and those specified in the County sector-specific reopening protocol ( s) located at http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/index.htm: a)Day camps. Day camp owners and operators must implement and post the required Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Reopening Protocol for Day Camps, attached to this Order as Appendix K. b)Schools (K-12) and School Districts. All public and private schools (K-12) and school districts within the County of Los Angeles may open for in-person classes. Educational facilities serving students at any grade level must prepare, implement and post the required Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Reopening Protocols for K- 12 Schools, attached to this Order as Appendix T1, and must follow the Protocol for Responding Together at Work and In the Community Beyond The Blueprint For A Safer Economy, High Transmission-Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage with Limited Risk Reduction Measures Revised 9/28/2021 Page7 af 15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER COVID-19 Exposure Management Plan in K-12 Schools, attached to this Order as Appendix T2. c)Mega Events (Outdoor and Indoor). Mega Events are characterized by large crowdsgreater than 1,000 indoor or 10,000 outdoor attendees. Mega Events includeconventions, conferences, expos, concerts, shows, nightclubs, sporting events, liveevents and enterta inment, fairs, festivals, parades, theme parks, amusement parks,water parks, large private events or gatherings, marathons or endurance races, and carshows. Mega Events may have either assigned or unassigned seating, and may beeither general admission or gated, ticketed and permitted events. These events areconsidered higher risk for COVID-19 transmission. i.Indoor Mega Events: Indoor Mega Events where 1,000 or more people are inattendance, remain open to the public. In addition to the public healthrecommendations, Indoor Mega Event operators must verify the full vaccinationstatus3 or pre-entry negative COVID-19 viral test4 result of all attendees.Attendees must wear a face covering while indoors at an Indoor Mega Event.Indoor Mega Event operators must prominently place information on allcommunications, including reservation and ticketing systems, to ensure guestsare aware of the proof of pre-entry negative testing or full vaccination status,including masking requirements, and acceptable modes of verification. ForIndoor Mega Events taking place on or after September 20, 2021, self­attestation can no longer be used as a method to verify an attendee's status asfully vaccinated or as proof of a negative COVID-19 test result. ii.Outdoor Mega Events: Outdoor Mega Events that attract crowds of over10,000 persons, remain open to the public. Beginning October 7, 2021,Outdoor Mega Event operators of events that are ticketed or held in a definedspace with controlled points of entry must verify the full vaccination status (seefootnote 3) or pre-entry negative COVID-19 viral test (see footnote 4) result ofall attendees, ages 12 and older, prior to entry to the event. All attendees mustwear face masks at all times, except when actively eating or drinking. OutdoorMega Event operators must prominently place Information on allcommunications, including reservation and ticketing systems, to ensure guestsare aware of both the County Health Officer's Order that all persons must weara face mask while in attendance and the County Health Officer req uirementthat all attendees, ages 12 and older, either be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or obtain a negative COVID-19 viral test prior to attending the event.Beginning November 1, 2021, operators are required to cross-check proof offull vaccination or negative COVID-19 viral test result against a photo 3 The following are acceptable as proof of full vaccination status: 1) A photo Identification of the attendee and 2) their vaccination card {which Includes name of person vaccinated, type of COVID-19 vaccine provided and date last dose administered) OR a photo of a vaccination card as a separate document OR a photo of the attendee's v.-:cine card stored on a phone or electronic device OR documentation of the person's full vaccination against COVID-19 from a healthcare provider. 4 Pre-entry negative testing is testing that must be conducted within 72 hours before event s1art time (both PCR and antigen are ac ceptable). Results of the test must be available prior to entry into the event or venue. The following are acceptable as proof of a negative COVID-19 viral test result: 1) A photo identification of the attendee and 2) a printed document from the test provider or laboratory OR an emall or text message displayed on a phone from the test provider or laboratory. The infonnation should include person's name, type of test performed, and negative test result (date of test must be within prior 72 hours). Respondlng Together at Work and ln the Community Beyond The Blueprint For A Safer Economy, High Transmission-Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage with Limited Risk Reduction Measures Revised 9/28/2021 Page8of 1S COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER identification for all attendees who are 18 years of age or older. Operators are to make face masks available for all attendees. iii.Additional Recommendations for Both Outdoor and Indoor Mega Events: Mega Event operators are encouraged to follow these additional recommendations: 1.Assign staff to remind all guests to wear face masks while on thepremises or location. 2.Encourage everyone to get vaccinated when eligible. 3.Facilitate increased ventilation of indoor spaces (i.e., open all windows and doors to increase natural air flow), following California Departmentof Public Health Interim Guidance for Ventilation, Filtration and Air Quality in Indoor Environments. 4.Encourage everyone to sign up for CA Notify as an added layer of protection for themselves and the community to receive alerts when they have been in close contact with someone who tests positive forCOVID-19. 5.Convey the risk of attending large, crowded events where the vaccine status of other attendees may be unknown to the individuals. 6.Convey the risk of attending large, crowded events for populations that may not currently be eligible for vaccination or may beimmunocompromised and whose vaccine protection may be incomplete. 7.Encourage all venues along any parade or event route to provideoutdoor spaces for eating/drinking/congregating to reduce the risk of transmission in indoor settings. d)Overnight Organized / Children's Camps. An organized camp is a site with program and facilities established for the primary purpose of providing an overnight outdoor group living experience for recreational or other purposes for five days or more during one ormore seasons of the year. A Notice of Intent to Operate must be submitted by the Camp operator to the Environmental Health Division Communityhealth@ph.lacounty.gov prior to operation. The owner or operator of an Overnight Organized/ Children's Ca mp must prepare, implement, and post the required Los Angeles County Public Health Protocols for Overnight Organized / Children's Camps, attached to this Order as Appendix K-1. e)Organized Youth Sports Activities. Organized youth sports Include all school (TK-12Grades) and community-sponsored programs and recreational or athletic activities andprivately organized clubs and leagues. Organized Youth Sport Protocols do not apply tocollegiate or professional sports. This Protocol provides direction on outdoor and indooryouth sports activities to support an environment that presents less risk for participantsof these sports. The organizers and operators of Organized Youth Sport Activities mustreview, implement, and post the required Los Angeles County Public Health Protocol forOrganized Youth Sports, effective September 1, 2021, attached to this Order as Appendix S. Responding Together at Work and In the Community Beyond The Blueprint For A Safer Economy, High Transmission-Encouraging COVID-19 Vacdnation Coverage with Limited Risk Reduction Measures Revised 9/28/2021 Page 9 of 15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER f)Bars, Breweries, Wineries and Distilleries. Effective October 7, 2021, bars that havea low-risk food facility public health permit and breweries, wineries, and distilleries with a #1 , #2, #4, #23 and/or #7 4 state alcohol license that do not possess or that are notrequired to have a public health permit to operate must require patrons, who are 12 years of age or older, to provide proof of their COVID-19 vaccination status for entry. BetweenOctober 7 and November 3, 2021, all patrons must provide proof they have received atleast one dose of COVID-19 vaccination for entry into the facility to obtain indoor serviceat a bar, brewery, winery, or distillery. Beginning November 4, 2021, all bars, breweries, wineries, and distilleries must require patrons, who are 12 years of age or older, toprovide proof of full vaccination against COVID-19 for entry into the facility to obtainindoor service. Patrons who do not provide proof of vaccination against COVID-19, asspecified, may be served in and use the outdoor portions of the facility, where the risk ofexposure to the virus that causes COVID-19 is less likely when compared to beingindoors. See paragraph 11 .i for further clarification. Bars, breweries, wineries, anddistilleries must comply with the Guidance for Verifying Proof of COVID-19 Vaccinationand Guidance for Verifying Proof of a Negative COVID-19 Test attached to this Order.In addition, by November 4, 2021, all on-site employees must provide their employer withproof of full vaccination against COVID-19.5 g)Nightclubs and Lounges. Effective October 7, 2021, nightclubs and lounges6 that areopen only to persons 18 years of age or older, must require patrons and on-sitepersonnel to provide proof of their COVID-19 vaccination status for entry. BetweenOctober 7 and November 3, 2021, patrons must provide proof they have received atleast one dose of COVID-19 vaccination for entry into the facility to obtain indoor service at a nightclub or lounge. Beginning November 4, 2021, all nightclubs and lounges mustrequire patrons to provide proof of full vaccination for entry into the facility to obtain indoorservice. Patrons who do not provide proof of full vaccination against COVID-19 may beserved in outdoor portions of the facility, where the risk of exposure to COVID-19 is lesslikely when compared to indoors. Nightclubs and lounges must comply with the Guidancefor Verifying Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination and Guidance for Verifying Proof of aNegative COVID-19 Test attached to this Order. In addition, by November 4, 2021, all 5 On·slte employees of the bars, breweries. wineries, distilleries, nightclubs and lounges may be exempt from the vaccination requirements only upon providing their employer, a declination form, signed by the individual stating either of the following: (1) the worker Is declining vaccination based on sincerely held religious beDefs, or (2) the Individual Is excused from receiving any COVID-19 vacx:lne due to Qualifying Medical Reasons. a. To be eligible for a Qualified Medical Reasons exemption the individual must also provide to 1heir employer a written statement signed by a physician, nurse practitioner, or other licensed medical professional practicing under the license of a physician stating that the individual qualifies for the exemption (but the statement should not describe the underlying medical condition or disability) and Indicating the probable duration of the worker's Inability to receive the vaccine (or if the duration ls unknown or pennanent, so indicate). See the most updated version of the CDC's Interim Clinical Considerations for Use of COVID-19 Vac cines guidance.b.If an operator of a bar, brewery, winery, distillery, nightclub or lounge deems Its on-site employee to have met the requirements of anexemption, the unvaccinated exempt employee must meet the following requirements when entering or working in such facility: a. Test for COVID-19 al least once per week with either polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or antigen test that either has Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or be operating per the Laboratory Developed Test requirements by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.b. Wear a surgical mask or higher-level respirator approved by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), such as an N95 filtering facepiece respirator, at all times while In the bar, brewery, winery, distillery, nightclub or lounge. 8 Nightclub means a commercial establishment dispensing beverages for consumption on the premises and In which dancing is permitted or entertainment is provided, and/or has as Its primary source of revenue (a) the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, (b) cover charges, or (c) both. A lounge is defined as a business that operates primarily for the preparation, sale, and service of beer, wine, or spirits. Minors are not a.Hawed in a lounge. Responding Together at Worl< and in the Community Beyond The Blueprint For A Safer Economy, High Transmission-Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage with Limited Risk Reduction Measures Revised 9/28/2on Page 10of15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER on-site employees must provide their employer with proof of full vaccination against COVID-19 (see footnote 5). h)Restaurants. These indoor venues serve food or drink indoors and are required tomaintain a valid public health permit to operate. Due to the increased risk of transmission at places where persons are indoors and unmasked, the County Health Officer stronglyrecommends that the operators of these ve nues reserve and prioritize indoor seatingand service for patrons who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. They should verifythe full vaccination status of all patrons, 12 years of age or older, who will be seatedindoors for food or beverage service. Patrons who cannot provide proof of full vaccinationagainst COVID-19 should be served in outdoor portions of the facility, where the risk ofexposure to the virus that causes COVID-19 is less likely when compared to beingindoors. See paragraphs 11.i.a through 11 .i.c for further clarification. i)For clarity, individuals who do not provide proof of partial or full vaccination at bars,breweries, wineries, distilleries, nightclubs and lounges, may use the outdoor portions ofthe facility, but may not remain inside the facility except as solely provided in thesubsections below: a.The individual, who is wearing a well-fitted mask, may enter the indoor portion ofthe facility as part of their employment to make a delivery or pick-up, provide aservice or repair to the facility, or for an emergency or regulatory purpose. b.The individual, who is wearing a well-fitted mask, may enter the indoor portion ofthe facility to get to the outdoor portion of the facility or to use the restroom. c.The individual, who is wearing a well-fitted mask, may enter the indoor portion of the facility to order, pick-up, or pay for food or drink "to go." REASONS FOR THE ORDER 12. This Order is based upon the following determinations: continued evidence of sustained andHigh community transmission of COVID-19 within the County; documented asymptomatictransmission; scientific evidence and best practices regarding the most effective approachesto slow the transmission of communicable diseases generally and COVID-19 specifically;evidence that millions of people in the County population continue to be at risk for infectionwith serious health complications, including hospitalizations and death from COVID-19, due toage, pre-existing health conditions, being unvaccinated or not eligible for vaccination, and theincreasing presence of more infectious variants of the virus that causes COVID-19 and whichhave been shown to cause more severe disease being present in the County; preliminaryevidence that suggests that fully vaccinated people who do become infected with the Deltavariant can spread the virus to others; and further evidence that other County residents,including younger and otherwise healthy people, are also at risk for serious negative healthoutcomes and for transmitting the virus to others. The Order's intent is to continue to reducethe risk of COVID-19 infection for all, especially those who are not or cannot be fully vaccinatedagainst COVID-19 in the County. Responding Together at Work and in the Community Beyond The Blueprint For A Safer Economy, High Transmission-Encouraging COVI0-19 Vaccination Coverage with Umited Risk Reduction Measures Revised 9/28/2021! Pagell of15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER 13.Existing community transmission of COVID-19 in Los Angeles County remains High andcontinues to present a high risk of infection and harm to the health of those who are not or cannot be vaccinated against COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccinations are widely available to those 12 years and older, but as of August 8, 2021, nearly 2.5 million eligible people age 12years and older in our community have not received a COVID-19 vaccination and remainsusceptible to infection, in addition to the approximately 1.4 million children under the age of12 years who are not currently eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccination. New variants ofthe virus that may spread more easily or cause more severe illness are increasingly presentin our county and remain a high risk for those who are not vaccinated against COVID-19 inthe absence of other community mitigation measures, like physical distancing requirementsand capacity limits in indoor and outdoor settings. As of, September 28, 2021 , there havebeen at least 1,456,275 cases of COVID-19 and 26 ,047 deaths reported in Los AngelesCounty. Increased interactions among members of the public have resulted in an increasednumber of daily new cases. As of September 21 _, 2021, the 7-day average daily case rate isnow at 12.9 cases per 100,000 people, indicating High community transmission, in theabsence of capacity limits and physical distancing requirements across sectors in both indoorand outdoor settings. Making the risk of community transmission worse, some individualswho contract the COVID-19 virus have no symptoms or have only mild symptoms, and soare unaware that they carry the virus and are transmitting it to others. Because even peoplewithout symptoms can transmit the virus, and because new evidence shows the infection isnow more easily spread, universal indoor masking is a risk reduction measure that is provento reduce the risk of transmitting the virus. 14. Epidemiologic evidence demonstrates that the rate of community transmission,hospitalizations and testing positivity rates have all drastically Increased since June 15, 2021.Although more than 12,345,075 vaccine doses have been administered and more than6,062,928 residents ages 12 and older are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in Los AngelesCounty, COVID-19 infection remains a significant health hazard to all residents. In line with the State Public Health Officer, the Health Officer will continue to monitor scientific evidence and epidemiological data within the County. 15. The Health Officer will continue monitoring epidemiological data to assess the impact of liftingrestrictions and fully re-opening sectors. Those Indicators include, but are not limited to: a)The number of new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths among residents in areas in thelowest Healthy Places Index (HPI) quartile and by race/ethnicity. b)The COVID-19 case rate. c)The percentage of COVID-19 tests reported that are positive. d)The availability of COVID-19 vaccines and the percentage of eligible County residentsvaccinated against COVID-19. e)The number of fully vaccinated people who get sick, are hospitalized, or die fromCOVID-19. Responding Together at Wori( and In the Community Beyond The Blueprint For A Safer Economy, High Transmission-Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage with Limited Risk Reduction Measures Revised 9/28/2021 PageUof15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER ADDITIONAL TERMS �Puiiuciteai,11 16. The County shall promptly provide copies of this Order by: (a) posting it on theLos Angeles Department of Public Health's website (www.publichealth.lacounty.gov). (b)posting it at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration located at 500 West Temple Street, LosAngeles, CA 90012, (c) providing it to any member of the public requesting a copy, and (d)issuing a press release to publicize the Order throughout the County. a)The owner, manager, or operator of any facility that is likely to be impacted by this Orderis strongly encouraged to post a copy of this Order onsite and download, review andimplement all applicable Best Practice Guidance. b)Because guidance may change, the owner, manager, or operator of any facility that issubject to this Order is encouraged to consult the Los Angeles County Department ofPublic Health's website (www.publichealth.lacounty.gov) daily to identify anymodifications to this Order and the Best Practice Guidance and continue to implementthese important and necessary infection control protocols. 17.lf any subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this Order or any application of it toany person, structure, gathering, or circumstance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by adecision of a court of competent jurisdiction, then such decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this Order. 18. This Order incorporates by reference, the March 4, 2020 Proclamation of a State of Emergency issued by Governor Gavin Newsom and the March 4, 2020 declarations of a local and public health emergency issued by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and Los Angeles County He alth Officer, respectively, and as they may be supplemented. 19. This Order may be revised In the future as the State Public Health Officer amends its guidance to reflect evolving public health conditions and recommendations issued by the federal CDC and other public health authorities. Should local COVID-19 conditions warrant, the Health Officer may, after consultation with the Board of Supervisors, issue orders that are more restrictive than the guidance and orders issued by the State Public Health Officer. 20. This Order is consistent with the provisions in the Governor's Executive Order N-60-20 and the State Public Health Officer's May 7, 2020 Order, that local health jurisdictions may implement or continue more restrictive public health measures in the jurisdiction if the local health officer believes conditions in that jurisdiction warrant them. Where a conflict exists between this Order and any state public health order related to controlling the spread of COVID-19 during this pandemic, the most restrictive provision controls. Consistent with California Health and Safety Code section 131080, except where the State Health Officer may issue an order expressly directed at this Order or a provision of this Order and based upon a finding that a provision of this Order constitutes a menace to the public health, any more restrictive measures in this Order may continue to apply and control in the County of Los Angeles Public Health Jurisdiction. Responding Together at Work and In the Community Beyond The Blueprint For A Safer Economy, High Transmission-Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage with Limited Risk Reduction Measures Revised 9/28/2021 Page 13 of1S COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFl·CER 21. Pursuant to Sections 26602 and 41601 of the California Government Code and Section101029 of the California Health and Safety Code, the Health Officer requests that the Sheriffand all chiefs of police in all cities located in the Los Angeles County Public Health Jurisdictionensure compliance with and enforcement of this Order. The violation of any provision of thisOrder constitutes an imminent threat and menace to public health, constitutes a publicnuisance, and is punishable by fine, imprisonment or both. 22. This Order is issued pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 101040, 120175, and120295. 23. This Order shall become effective at 11 :59pm on Thursday, October 07, 2021 and willcontinue to be until it is revised, rescinded, superseded, or amended in writing by the HealthOfficer. IT IS SO ORDERED: Muntu Davis, M.D., M.P.H. Health Officer, County of Los Angeles 9/28/2021 Issue Date Responding Together at Work and In the Community Beyond The Blueprint For A Safer Economy, High Transmission-Encouraging COVID-19 Vaccination Coverage with Limited Risk Reduction Measures Revised 9/28/2021 Page 1Aof15 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER Appendices At-A-Glance Businesses and customers should continue reviewing best practice documents and sector-specific protocol for designated areas on a regular basis to ensure they are complying with the latest health protection and prevention measures. All DPH protocol and best practice documents are available at: http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/med la/Coronavirus/index.htm Appendix K: Reopening Protocol for Day Camps [Revised 6/23/2021] Appendix K-1: Reopening Protocol for Ov ernight Organized/ Children's Camps [Revised 6/14/2021] Appendix S: Appendix T1 : Protocol for Organized Youth Sports [Revised 9/27/2021] Reopening Protocols for K-12 Schools [Revised 8/12/2021] Appendix T2: Protocol for COVID-19 Exposure Management Plan in K-12 Schools [Revised 9/17/2021] City of :lfermosa 'l?eacL Civic Center, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, California 90254-3885 July 8, 2021 Mr. Kenneth Garmoe Transmitted via email: Kenny@Garmoe.com Mr. Garmoe: Per our telephone conversation yesterday, you requested that we put information in writing regarding the classification of your business for business license purposes. The information we are providing has been confirmed by our City Attorney. The category of your business based on information provided by you is: Bar and restaurant with alcohol, closing at 12 a.m. five days or more per week (specific hours must be identified in business tax certificate). Our understanding is that your business is a bar and not a restaurant however, for business licensing purposes bars and restaurants are in the above category. Liz Zeigler, Finance Cashier Supervisor, has given you a copy of the amount due of $6,169.57, which includes credits for the time you were not open and your license through June 2022. Please pay the amount due prior to July 31, 2021 to avoid late fees. Respectfully, (uu� Viki Copeland Finance Director Ex.D ATTACHMENT 2 – HBMC, Section 5.04.200(A)(6) Schedule of business taxes. 5.04.200 (A)(6) Schedule of business taxes. Food and beverage: Restaurant without alcohol Bar and restaurant with alcohol closing before 12:00 a.m. Bar and restaurant with alcohol, closing after 12:00 a.m. three (3) days or less per week (specific days must be identified in business tax certificate) Bar and restaurant with alcohol, closing after 12:00 a.m. four (4) days per week (specific days must be identified in business tax certificate) Bar and restaurant with alcohol, closing after 12:00 a.m. five (5) days or more per week (specific days must be identified in business tax certificate) Food and/or beverage with drive through operation (maximum tax of eight thousand dollars ($8,000)) The following holidays shall not be counted towards the number of days per week limitations established above: Sunday evening preceding Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and Presidents’ Day; St. Patrick’s Day; Cinco de Mayo; Sunday evening preceding Memorial Day; Independence Day; Sunday evening preceding Labor Day; Thanksgiving Day; day after Thanksgiving; Christmas; and New Year’s Eve. All restaurant categories except restaurant without alcohol and restaurants with beer and wine that close by 10:00 p.m. are subject to prior approval of a conditional use permit. No tax refund is available should a restaurant with alcohol reduce the number of days it is open after 12:00 a.m. An increase in the number of days a restaurant is open after 12:00 a.m. will require payment of the additional tax. Attachment 3 Exhibit A - Schedule of Taxes Section Rates GENERAL BUSINESS LICENSE 1.A.1 $175 Bench advertising Checkroom for storage of parcels or wearing apparel Publishing a newspaper, newspaper agency Special or seasonal sales, when not in connection with a fixed place of business Auto wrecking and junk dealers subject to compliance with the requirements of Chapter 5.60 Trained animal show Bowling alleys subject to compliance with the requirements of Chapter 5.68 Health and culture establishments New or used machinery Live theaters Motion picture production Pawnbrokers, subject to compliance with the requirements of Chapter 5.60 Pool and billiard parlors, subject to compliance with the licensing requirements of Chapter 5.68 Taxicabs and autos for hire, subject to compliance with Chapter 5.72 Dating bureaus, compatability matching services, counseling or advisory services Motion picture theaters, subject to prior approval of a Conditional Use Permit Business License Category Advertising by means of searchlight, skylight, klieg light, portable flood ligth or any other such lighting device, subject to special permit from Chief of Police Selling or offering for sale stocks of machinery, goods, wares or merchandise advertised as bankrupt, sherrifs, assignee's, trustee's, creditor's, receiver's or special sale of damaged goods, subject to compliance with the requirements of Chapter 5.60 Tent shows, transient and other theatrical exhibitions of skill, physical and mental strength or ability, art or science, subject to prior approval of a Conditional Use Permit or Special Permit issued pursuant to Section 12.12.070 Laundry or similar business where the public may leave their wash to be done; launderette, laundromats or dry cleaning on the premises by individual machines, where a charge is made through a coin-operated slot or on a flat fee basis; coin-operated washer and dryer equipment not owned by the proprietor in apartment houses, hotels, motels and other similar accommodations for dwelling, sleeping or lodging Motion picture production not operating from a fixed place of business in the City, subject to compliance with the permit requirements of Section 12.28.130 Private detective, watchman service with a fixed place of business in the City or rendering a service within the City; loan company; and escrow company Dancing studio, studio of music, music lessons, bridge lessons, art studio, swim school and nursery schools Barbershops, manicuring, facial massage, beauty parlors, cosmetic skin treatment and establishments were massage services are offered by an individual as an incidental or accessory service and does not occupy more than 25% of the area of the establishment Auto or boat parking or storage lot except when this type of lot is part of and associated with another business activity Processions, parades, etc., in connection with any amusement or other enterprise operated for profit, subject to prior approval of a Special Permit issued pursuant to Section 12.12.070 Entertainment not in conjunction with a bar or restaurant serving alcoholic beverages, subject to prior approval of a Conditional Use Permit Dance halls Confectionery, candy, popcorn concessions operated in the foyer or lobby of theaters, places of amusements or public buildings Z:\Ordinances\2011\PDF\Ord No. 11-1330 Exhibit A.xlsx Exhibit A - Schedule of Taxes Section RatesBusiness License Category AUTO/BOAT/DEALER/MFG/WHOLESALE fixed rates Auto/Boat/Dealer/Mfg/Wholesale < $3,000,000 Sales 1.A.2 $500 Auto/Boat/Dealer/Mfg/Wholesale > $3,000,000 Sales 1.A.2 $1,250 Gasoline Service Stations 1.A.3 $2,500 1.A.4 fixed rate plus rate per employee $350 plus $25 per employee LODGING 1.A.5 fixed rates per unit Apartments, Hotels, Motels, Rental of Residential Property, Care Centers $35 per unit, owner occupied exempted Trailer and Mobile Home Park $30 per unit FOOD & BEVERAGE 1.A.6 Restaurant without alcohol $250 Bar and restaurant with alcohol closing before 12am $600 Bar and restaurant with alcohol, closing after 12am three days or less per week (specific days must be identified in business tax certificate)$2,000 Bar and restaurant with alcohol, closing after 12am four days per week (specific days must be identified in business tax certificate)$3,000 Bar and restaurant with alcohol, closing after 12am five days or more per week (specific days must be identified in business tax certificate)$5,000 Food and/or beverage with drive-thru operation (Maximum tax - $8,000)$1.00 per $1,000 in gross receipts RETAIL 1.A.7 Retail < $250,000 Sales $175 Retail > $250,000 Sales (Maximum tax - $8,000)$1.00 per $1,000 in gross receipts All retail establishments not expressly listed in another category $175 Supermarkets, Drug Stores, Liquor Stores, or Off-Sale Liquor Greater of $2,500 or $1.00 per $1,000 in gross receipts Off-Sale Alcohol Credit $1,500 credit for closing hours at or before 12am BUILDING CONTRACTORS 1.A.8 fixed rates Contractors $350 Subcontractor $275 MISCELLANEOUS 1.A.9 Home occupations, in compliance with the regulations set forth in Section 17.08.020F $99 per year. Catering/food trucks, subject to compliance with Sections 10.32.170, 10.32.180, 12.20.230(A), 12.20.300, 12.24.020, 12.28.030(10)$500 per vehicle per year. Hospital, animal hospital, sanitariums, mortuary, rest homes $1,500 plus $25 per employee $750 per year. $750 per year. $175 per vehicle per year. Solicitors/peddlers $200 per individual per year. Telephone Companies $1.00 per $1,000 in Gross Receipts Utility companies without a City franchise $1.00 per $1,000 in Gross Receipts Vending machines, music and amusement machines $100 per machine per year. PROFESSIONAL AND SEMI-PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH A FIXED PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THE CITY Professional and semi-professional services with a fixed place of business in the City, including but not limited to attorneys, income tax agents, auditors, accountants, architects, engineers, real estate brokers, chiropodists, dentists, opticians, optometrists, osteopaths, physicians, surgeons, veterinarians, and any other similar professions for which a State license is required, public stenographer, telephone services, employment agengies, advertising agencies, public relations agencies, travel agencies, consultants not qualifying as professional or semi-professional, telephone soliciting office Massage therapy, in compliance with the regulations set forth in Chapter 5.74 (excluding massage that is less than 25% of business activity). Tattoo piercing studio, in compliance with the regulations set forth in Section 17.26.070 Services and delivery vehicles including but not limited to swimming pool maintenance services, installation and maintenance of portable toilets, installation, servicing, maintaining alarm service, window cleaning, building cleaning, or carpet cleaning, television, radio repair service, or appliance repair service, lawn service, gardening service, landscaping service, all other vehicles not specifically enumerated above Z:\Ordinances\2011\PDF\Ord No. 11-1330 Exhibit A.xlsx Exhibit A - Schedule of Taxes Section RatesBusiness License Category 1.B Add 10% 1.B Add 20% 1.B Add 5% 1.) 2.) 3.) 4.) 5.) All categories except restaurant without alcohol and restaurants with beer and wine that close by 10:00 p.m. are subject to prior approval of a conditional use permit. No tax refund is available should a restaurant with alcohol reduce the number of days it is open after 12:00 a.m. An increase in the number of days a restaurant is open after 12:00 a.m. will require payment of the additional tax. (Section 1.A.6) SURCHARGE ON TAXES: FOOD AND BEVERAGE (all restaurants with alcohol located outside Downtown and Upper Pier Avenue) SURCHARGE ON TAXES: UPPER PIER AVENUE (on Pier Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway) SURCHARGE ON TAXES: DOWNTOWN (All businesses, excuding home occupations, located within the area bounded by Palm Drive on the east, the Strand on the west, 16th Court on the north and 8th Street on the south) Any person who pays a tax based on a false report of gross receipts or carries on any food/beverage business after 12:00 a.m. on nights other than those specified in the license shall pay a penalty of treble the prescribed license tax. Said penalty shall be collected and the payment hereof shall be enforced in the same manner as other license taxes are collected and payment thereof enforced, and shall be in addition to any other remedy provided for in this Chapter, including revocation pursuant to Section 5.04.260 (Section 3) Businesses with a fixed location within the boundaries of the City other than bars and restaurants with alcohol that close after 12 a.m. are exempt from business taxation for the first year the business is in operation but must nonetheless file a business license application. (Section 1.A) Taxes imposed in the Schedule of Taxes on a basis other than a percentage of gross receipts and the maximum tax established for businesses taxed on the basis of gross receipts shall be adjusted on an annual basis using the percentage increase in the cost of living, not to exceed three percent (3%) as calculated by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area for All Urban Consumers. (Section 2) Notes: In determining the number of days open per week for restaurants, the following holidays are exempt: New Year's Eve, Sunday evening prior to Martin Luther King Jr. Day and President's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Cinco de Mayo, Sunday evening prior to Memorial Day, Independence Day, Sunday evening prior to Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Day after Thanksgiving, and Christmas. (Section 1.A.6) Z:\Ordinances\2011\PDF\Ord No. 11-1330 Exhibit A.xlsx ATTACHMENT 4 – HBMC, Section 5.04.310 Appeals. 5.04.310 Appeals. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the license collector with respect to the issuance or refusal to issue such license may appeal to the City Council by filing a notice of appeal with the city manager. The city manager shall thereupon fix a time and place for hearing such appeal. Notice shall be given to such person of the time and place of hearing by serving it personally or by depositing it in the United States Post Office at Hermosa Beach, California, postage prepaid, addressed to such person at his last known address. The council shall have authority to determine all questions raised on such appeal. No such determination shall conflict with any substantive provisions of this title. (Prior code § 17-25) ATTACHMENT 5 – HBMC, Section 5.04.120 Determination of type or class of business. 5.04.120 Determination of type or class of business. In any case where a licensee or an applicant for a license believes that his individual business is not assigned to the proper classification under this chapter because of circumstances peculiar to it, as distinguished from other businesses of the same kind, he may apply to the license collector for reclassification. Such application shall contain such information as the license collector may deem necessary and require in order to determine whether the applicant’s individual business is properly classified. The license collector shall then conduct an investigation following which he shall assign the applicant’s individual business to the classification shown to be proper on the basis of such investigation. (Prior code § 17-12) ATTACHMENT 6 – HBMC, Section 17.04.050 Commercial land use definitions. 17.04.050 Commercial land use definitions. Alcohol Beverage Establishment, On-Sale. "On-sale alcohol beverage establishment" means sale of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, spirits) for consumption on the premises whether in conjunction with a restaurant, or as a bar or cocktail lounge or in conjunction with a nightclub (see definition of "restaurant"). "Restaurant" means a bona fide public eating establishment (A) whose primary function is the sale or offering for sale of prepared food during all hours it is open for business, and (B) that prepares food on-site in a kitchen capable of refrigerating and preparing food from its component ingredients. ATTACHMENT 7 – HBMC, Section 17.26.060 Restaurants with on-sale alcoholic beverages limited to beer and wine, closing at 10:00 p.m. or earlier-- Standards and limitations. 17.26.060 Restaurants with on-sale alcoholic beverages limited to beer and wine, closing at 10:00 p.m. or earlier-- Standards and limitations. Restaurants with on-sale alcoholic beverages limited to beer and wine that close at 10:00 p.m. or earlier, pursuant to the list of permitted uses in Section 17.26.030, shall be subject to the following: A. Alcoholic beverage service and its consumption shall be limited to those areas for said use designated on a floor plan and seating plan approved by the community development director, including compliance with the following: 1. No stand-up bar area shall be located within the area designated for alcoholic beverage service and its consumption on the approved floor plan and seating plan. 2. Not more than two (2) televisions, electronic, video or similar displays screens shall be located within or visible from any area designated for alcoholic beverage service and its consumption on the approved floor plan and seating plan. 3. The establishment shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements for food facilities with on-sale alcoholic beverages found at Chapter 8.04, including the provision of adequate toilet facilities. B. The establishment shall obtain a business license appropriate to the intended use pursuant to Chapter 5.04. No establishment classified as a "snack bar or snack shop" pursuant to Section 17.04.050 shall be eligible to obtain a business license for an establishment that sells, offers to sell, or serves alcoholic beverages. (Ord. 09-1298 §4, 2009) City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13239 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, at the hour of 6:01 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Bobko, DiVirgilio, Duclos, Tucker, Mayor Fishman Absent: None ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS: CALL TO ORDER 1.PUBLIC COMMENT: This time has been set aside for members of the public to address the City Council on Closed Session items. 2.MINUTES: Approval of minutes of Closed Session meeting held on July 12, 2011. 3.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation. Existing Litigation: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) a) Name of Case: Hermosa Beach Citizens United vs City of Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Number: BS131419 Anticipated Litigation: Government Code Section 54956.9(b) b)Number of Cases: 1 (Letter from William Beverly regarding claim of Thomas Brodie). 4.PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Government Code Section 54957 Title: City Manager ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION – The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, at the hour of 6:02 p.m., to a closed session. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION – At the hour of 7:14 p.m., the Closed Session adjourned to the Regular Meeting, which was called to order at 7:21 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Sam Pena, Consolidated Disposal Service ATTACHMENT 8 - City Council Meeting Minutes, July 26, 2011 City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13240 ROLL CALL: Present: Bobko, DiVirgilio, Duclos, Tucker, Mayor Fishman Absent: None CLOSED SESSION REPORT – City Attorney Jenkins reported there were no public comments and no items added to the agenda; said the Council discussed the three items listed on the agenda and there were no reportable actions. Mayor Fishman announced that item 6(h) under Municipal Matters should be moved to the Public Hearings section of the agenda as item 5(b), stating that the item had been noticed as a public hearing. ANNOUNCEMENTS – Mayor pro tem Duclos said he had represented the Council the previous Saturday at a farewell party for the Sister City exchange students and had the pleasure of accepting a gift from Hermosa’s sister city Loreto, Mexico; said former Mayor George Barks might want to make additional comments. George Barks, Student Exchange Program Director, said Hermosa Beach and Loreto have been sister cities for 44 years and the student exchange program ha s been in place for 37 years; said the gift that Loreto gave to Hermosa Beach this year is a painting of the mission bell that Hermosa Beach gave Loreto in 1997 to celebrate the 300th birthday of Loreto, where the first mission was established. Councilmember Tucker announced Navy Week with four ships in the Los Angeles Harbor San Pedro and navy personnel to be bused to local cities; asked residents to thank them for their service if they see them about town. He also announced the Surf Festival the coming weekend and discussed the various activities associated with the event. He invited the community to the first of four Summer Concerts on the Beach this weekend, courtesy of St. Rocke’s. PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION TO THE HERMOSA BEACH GREEN TASK FORCE IN RECOGNITION OF THEIR VALUATION CONTRIBUTIONS IN ADVANCING SUSTAINABILITY Mayor Fishman presented certificates to the Green Task Force Members and thanked them for their contributions to making Hermosa Beach a Cool City, working toward the goal of reducing the City’s carbon footprint. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: 1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS There were no written communications this evening. City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13241 Coming forward to address the Council at this time were: Dr. James McKinnell – Hermosa Beach, expressed his concerns about health hazards to the community from the tattoo parlors in town; Chris Kimball – Hermosa Beach resident/Green Task Force member, urged enactment of a City ordinance and enforcement to discourage littering (City Attorney Jenkins said the Penal Code imposed littering fines); Dency Nelson – Hermosa Beach, thanked individuals and organizations for supporting the Shakespeare by the Sea program which would not exist without their contributions; Hany Fangary – Hermosa Beach, reiterated Dr. McKinnell’s concerns about community health issues; said he believed the tattoo parlor at Eighth Street and Hermosa Avenue had an invalid parking plan which the Planning Commission has refused to acknowledge; Roger Bacon – Ralphs Shopping Center, discussed upcoming Pacific Coast Highway safety improvements, such as traffic signals at crosswalks which count down the time left for pedestrians to cross and yellow crosswalks to indicate school children crossing; and Sandy Saemann – Hermosa Beach, said Closed Session items which did not involve litigation, such as the City Manager’s evaluation, should be discussed at a public meeting. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: Action: To approve the consent calenda r recommendations (a) through (p) with the exception of the following item, which was rem oved for discussion in item 4, but is shown in order for clarity: 2(k) Bobko. Motion DiVirgilio, second Bobko. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. (a) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JUNE 13, 2011. Action: To approve as presented the City Council minutes of the Adjourned Regular meeting held on June 13, 2011. (b) RECOMMENDATION TO RATIFY CHECK REGISTER NOS. 63663 THROUGH 63829 Action: To ratify the check register as presented , and to approve the cancellation of check numbers 63254, 63510 and 63524 as recommended by the City Treasurer. (c) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE 1) Tentative Future Agenda Items; and 2) City Council Directives. Action: To receive and file the tentative future agenda items and City Council directives. City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13242 (d) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE JUNE 2011 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT AND TREASURER’S REPORT. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated July 20, 2011. Action: To receive and file memorandum regarding the June 2011 Revenue and Expenditure Report and Treasurer’s Report. (e) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE JUNE 2011 INVESTMENT REPORT. Memorandum from City Treasurer John Workman dated July 20, 2011. Action: To receive and file the June 2011 Investment Report. (f) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL. (Continued from meeting of July 12, 2011) Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated June 30, 2011. Action: To approve the class specification for Building and Code Enforcement Official, as recommended by staff. (g) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE PROJECT STATUS REPORT. Memorandum from Interim Public Works Director Frank Senteno dated July 19, 2011. Action: To receive and file the Status Report of capital improvement projects that are either under design or construction, as recommended by staff . (h) RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS AND REFER THEM TO THE CITY’S LIABILITY CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated July 18, 2011. Claimant: Bertagnolli, Timothy Date of Loss: 05-17-11 Date Filed: 07-5-11 Allegation: Personal injury Claimant: Amerian, Dawn Date of Loss: 06-13-11 Date Filed: 07-18-11 Allegation: Property injury Action: To deny the claims and refer them to the City’s Liability Claims Administrator, as recommended by staff. City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13243 (i) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE ACTION MINUTES OF THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 2, 2011. Action: To receive and file the action minutes of the Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission meeting of May 2, 2011. (j) RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT DONATION OF A SCOTT PAK TRACKER UNIT TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FROM FIREFIGHTERS SUPPORT SERVICES (FFSS). Memorandum from Fire Chief David Lantzer dated July 18, 2011. Action: To accept the donation of a Scott Pak Tracker unit to the Fire Department from Firefighters Support Services (FFSS). (k) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated July 20, 2011. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember Bobko for separate discussion later in the meeting but was subsequently continued because of the lateness of the hour, and no action was taken. (l) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH VISION INTERNET TO PROVIDE E-NOTIFICATION TOOL TO THE NEW WEBSITE. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated July 17, 2011. Action: To approve a contract amendment with Vision Internet to provide e - Notification tool to the new website, as recommended by staff. (m) RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF FOUR (4) 2011 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTORS (PAINTED BLACK AND WHITE) TO REPLACE EXISTING 2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTORS. Memorandum from Police Chief Greg Savelli dated July 7, 2011. Action: To authorize the purchase of four (4) 2011 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors (painted black and white) to replace existing 2005 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors, as recommended by staff. (n) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 19, 2011. Action: To receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 19, 2011. City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13244 (o) RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL MAP #70310 FOR A 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 719-725 TWENTY- FIRST STREET. Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated July 18, 2011. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 11- 6756, entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL PARCEL MAP NO. 70310, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, LOCATED AT 719, 721, 723 AND 725 TWENTY-FIRST STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 23 AND 24, HERMOSA VIEW TRACT NO. 1, IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA.” (p) RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS TO SELECT DESIGN CONSULTANTS TO PREPARE PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND COST ESTIMATES TO DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR PCH AND AVIATION BASED ON THE AESTHETICS SUBCOMMITTEE’S FINAL REPORT. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated July 18, 2011. Action: To authorize staff to solicit proposals to select design consultants to prepare plans, specifications and cost estimates to develop a comprehensive improvement plan for PCH and Aviation based on the Aesthetics Subcommittee’s Final Report, as recommended by staff. At 7:46 p.m., the order of the agenda was moved to public hearing items 5(a), 5(b). 3. CONSENT ORDINANCES a. ORDINANCE NO. 11-1325 – “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD PROVISIONS FOR REGULATING PARKING OF OVERSIZED VEHICLES. For adoption. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 21, 2011. Action: To waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 11-1325 Motion Bobko, second Tucker. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bobko, DiVirgilio, Duclos, Tucker, Mayor Fishman NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION Item 2(k) was removed from the consent calendar for separate discussion but subsequently was continued. City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13245 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. ADOPTION OF METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY (MTA) LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT AND SELF CERTIFICATION RESOLUTION CERTIFYING COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089. Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated July 21, 2011. Community Development Director Robertson presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at 7:55 p.m. As no one came forward to address the Council on this item, the public hearing closed at 7:55 p.m. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 11- 6757, entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE CITY TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089.” Motion Bobko, second DiVirgilio. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. b. CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT GENERAL HOUSING ELEMENT FOR SUBMITTAL TO STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated July 19, 2011. Supplemental information from staff and emails from Susan Darcy and Wendy Noble-Cubillos received July 26. (This item was inadvertently placed on the agenda as Municipal Matter item 6(h), but had been noticed as a public hearing and was appropriately moved .) Community Development Director Robertson presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Attorney Jenkins and City Manager Burrell also responded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at 8:27 p.m. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Dr. Bernice Lindell – Hermosa Beach, asked if she would receive notification and be able to protest if a site selected for low-income housing was near her street, which was exclusively residential; asked if the zoning would be changed (Community Development Director Robertson said there would be noticed Planning Commission and City Council public hearings before any action was taken; City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13246 Tim Personius – Hermosa Beach, said the City should try to negotiate for a better allocation of low-income housing because of the absurd requirements for such a small town even if the City is not required to build right away; said he had heard of another City buying property outside their boundaries to use for this purpose; Kurt Meyer – Hermosa Beach, said the State mandate seemed inappropriate to crowd into a small city; felt low-income housing should not encroach into residential neighborhoods; and Sharon Mercier – Hermosa Beach, read her written statement; said she lived adjacent to an empty lot and would protest rezoning for low-income housing because it would lower her property value. The public hearing closed at 8:38 p.m. Action: To direct staff to report back to the Council within 60 days after exploring possible assistance from the legislature, the Southern California Association of Governments and other resources to lessen the obligations of the City in the General Housing Element to be submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development. Motion DiVirgilio, second Bobko. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO PLACE ON THE BALLOT OF THE GENERAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 8, 2011 A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ENACTING A COMPREHENSIVE RESTRUCUTURING AND UPDATE OF THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX ORDINANCE. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated July 18, 2011. Supplemental letter from Howard Longacre received July 25. Finance Director Copeland presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Manager Burrell and City Attorney Jenkins also responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Jim Lissner – Hermosa Beach, said the measure under consideration was flawed and addressed specifics; said he would withdraw the measure he initiated because it too is flawed (City Attorney Jenkins said Mr. Lissner lacked the power to withdraw the measure because it had already met the requirements for being placed on the ballot ); Andrea Jacobsson – Business License Tax Review Committee member, thanked Mr. Lissner for his attempt to withdraw his measure; said all businesses would suffer if eating and drinking establishments were forced to close because of greatly increased costs; Robert Booker – Ex-Officio Committee member, said the downtown is a business district, and a surcharge on businesses with high revenue, as proposed in the Ordinance under consideration, was appropriate; City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13247 Paul Hennessey – Hennessey’s and The Lighthouse, said he already paid a surcharge for serving in the outside dining area after midnight (he was advised that was not a surcharge but the rental of City property, and he could avoid additional charges by closing his patio at midnight); George Barks – Hermosa Beach property owner, urged the Council to place the proposed Ordinance on the ballot; said Mr. Lissner’s measure was punitive to businesses in an area where conditions have improved because of better enforcement of conditional use permits; and Roger Bacon – Ralph’s Shopping Center, discussed his family’s history of doing business in Hermosa Beach and his involvement in civic affairs for the last 63 years; said the City should do all it can to e ncourage business opportunities. Action: To amend the proposed Ordinance to allow new restaurants not serving alcohol and restaurants closing before midnight to have a free business license in their first year. Motion Tucker, second Bobko. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Further Action: To amend the proposed Ordinance as suggested by the City Attorney as follows: page 4, category 6, last paragraph, exempt from a conditional use permit requirement all restaurants, with or without alcohol, that close at 10:00 p.m. Motion Bobko, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Further Action: To amend the proposed Ordinance to move dance hall with no food and beverage into the General Business category with an annual $175 fee. Motion Mayor Fishman, second DiVirgilio. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. City Attorney Jenkins suggested two minor changes to the Ordinance: (1) Page 8, Section 5, end of second sentence, delete the word “any” before the word “such” and delete “or fees” so the sentence reads “If this Ordinance…....concerning imposition of any taxes.”; and (2) Page 4, paragraph 6 – Food and beverage, change appropriate item s to read “bars and restaurants with alcohol,” rather than “restaurants with alcohol.” Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 11- 6758, entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2011, AS CALLED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 11-6750 OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO A COMPREHENSIVE REORGANIZATION AND UPDATE OF THE CITY’S BUSINESS LICENSE TAX ORDINANCE” with the changes made to the proposed Ordinance as amended by the City Council this evening and the City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13248 corrections suggested by the City Attorney. (The resolution was reconsidered and re-adopted during discussion of the next item.) Motion Bobko, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO PLACE ON THE BALLOT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 8, 2011 A PROPOSED ORDINANCE SUBMITTED BY PETITION RELATING TO THE CITY’S BUSINESS LICENSE TAX ON RESTAURANTS AND BARS, AND OTHER PERTINENT RESOLUTIONS CONCERNING THE PLACEMENT OF ANY AND ALL MEASURES TO BE ON THE BALLOT. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 20, 2011. City Clerk Doerfling presented the staff report and responded to Counc il questions. City Attorney Jenkins also responded to Council questions. Action: To reconsider Resolution No. 11-6758 adopted in the previous item. Motion Bobko, second DiVirgilio. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Further Action: To re-adopt Resolution No. 11-6758, entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2011, AS CALLED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 11-6750 OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO A COMPREHENSIVE REORGANIZATION AND UPDATE OF THE CITY’S BUSINESS LICENSE TAX ORDINANCE” with the City Council amendments and City Attorney corrections m ade to the proposed Ordinance earlier this evening, and with the following amended ballot wording in the resolution : “Shall an Ordinance be adopted as recommended by the Business License Tax Review Committee, comprised of residents and business owners, and a unanimous City Council to simplify, update and restructure the City’s business license tax Ordinance and offer incentives for new businesses?” Motion Bobko, second DiVirgilio. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 11- 6759, entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE SUBMITTED BY PETITION RELATING TO THE CITY’S BUSINESS LICENSE TAX ON RESTAURANTS AND BARS AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2011, AS CALLED BY CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 11-6750.” Motion Bobko, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 11- 6760, entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR FILING City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13249 WRITTEN ARGUMENTS REGARDING TWO MEASURES TO BE SUBMITTED AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2011, AND DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE THE IMPARTIAL ANALYSES,” with Councilmember Bobko and Mayor Fishman authorized to write the argument in favor of the City Council measure and the argument against the measure placed on the ballot by initiative petition, as is their right as City Council, both arguments to be signed by all five City Councilmembers. Motion Bobko, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 11- 6761, entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING FOR THE FILING OF REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS FOR MEASURES SUBMITTED AT THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2011.” Motion Bobko, second DiVirgilio. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. City Clerk Doerfling noted that the deadline for submittin g direct arguments is Tuesday, August 9, at 6:00 p.m., and the deadline for submitting rebuttal arguments is 5:00 p.m., Friday, August 19. At 9:50 p.m., the order of the agenda went to item 6(g). c. PROPOSED PILOT PROGRAM FOR LOT A AND LOT B TRASH ENCLOSURES. Memorandum from Interim Public Works Director Frank Senteno dated July 19, 2011. Interim Public Works Director Senteno presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Paul Hennessey – Pier Plaza business owner, said his only reservation to what appears to be a great program is losing some parking spaces and suggested placing the enclosure in the corner of the parking lot; Ron Newman – Sharkeez, said the business owners were looking forward to the change and to seeing how the porter service would work; and James Castro – General Manager, Consolidated Disposal Service, said they would begin with two four-hour shifts but would adjust to accommodate the needs of the business owners as a pattern develops; Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: (1) Authorize the implementation of a porter service to maintain the trash facilities at Lots A and B ef fective August 1, 2011, and to include the costs into the participating merchants’ monthly trash collection bill; and (2) Authorize staff to solicit proposals for design of the trash enclosure. Motion Duclos, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13250 d. FEE WAIVER FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR PROJECTS. (Continued from meeting of July 12, 2011) Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated July 5, 2011. Community Development Director Robertson presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: (1) Extend the fee waiver for all permit costs associated with a photovoltaic installation, including building and electrical permit fees, except for building permit fees to upgrade the structure to accommodate the installation; and (2) Review the decision no later than August 31, 2012. Motion Duclos, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. e. FEE REDUCTION FOR SMALL WIND ENERGY SYSTEMS. (Continued from meeting of July 12, 2011) Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated July 5, 2011. Community Development Director Robertson presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: (1) W aive a portion of Planning and Building permit fees associated with installation of a small wind energy system, charging only the contract service fee the City pays for public noticing, other outside agency fees, any outside contractor fees, and outside plan check fees, except for building permit fees to upgrade the structure to accommodate the installation; and (2) Review the decision no later than August 31, 2013. Motion Duclos, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. f. CITY INCENTIVES TO ADVANCE SUSTAINABILITY. (Continued from meeting of July 12, 2011) Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated July 5, 2011. Community Development Director Robertson presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to direct staff to implement the following incentives and report back to the Council in one year: (1) Waive preferential parking permit fees for 100% electric or 100% CNG vehicles; (2) Waive building permit fees for service upgrades for 100% alternative fuel vehicles (e.g., electric charging, CNG); City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13251 (3) Direct City Manager to formulate and then implement a list of specific improvements eligible for up to a 50% reduction in building permit fees to increase energy efficiency or incentivize LEED or Built-It-Green Program certification, focusing on actions that will make a significant contribution, exceed code requirements or are ear ly adoption-type behaviors; and (4) Provide priority permits processing for the above. Motion Duclos, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. g. PENSION LIABILITY INDEPENDENT ECONOMIC REPORT. (Continued from meeting of July 12, 2011) Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated July 7, 2011. City Manager Burrell presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To direct staff to return with a proposal letter and scope of work. Motion Bobko, second Tucker. The motion carried, noting the dissenting vote of Duclos. The meeting recessed at 10:32 p.m., at which time, Councilmember DiVirgilio and City Clerk Doerfling left the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 10:42 p.m., with item 6(c). h. CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT GENERAL HOUSING ELEMENT FOR SUBMITTAL TO STATE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. This item was heard as Public Hearing item 5b. It was inadvertently placed on the agenda in the Municipal Matters section but had been noticed as a Public Hearing. i. DETERMINE WHETHER TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING OUTDOOR DINING WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated July 21, 2011. Community Development Director Robertson presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council on this item was: (No name given) – Hermosa Avenue business owner, asked if he could put chairs outside if he provided proof of insurance and a sketch showing that there would be minimal encroachment. Action: To direct the Planning Commission to prepare an amendment to the Municipal Code to allow outdoor dining on the public right -of-way in City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13252 commercial districts, excluding Upper Pier Avenue, as a temporary measure during study of a permanent Ordinance. Motion Tucker, second Bobko. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. j. APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN. Memorandum from Fire Chief David Lantzer dated July 20, 2011 Fire Chief Lantzer presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: (1) Adopt Resolution No. 11-6762, entitled “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO ADOPT THE UPDATED EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN.” (2) Authorize the Mayor to sign Letter of Promulgation; and (3) Authorize the City Manager to amend and update the EOP as needed. Motion Bobko, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. k. BEACH RESTROOM IMPROVEMENTS – STATUS OF THE 14TH STREET RESTROOM. Memorandum from Interim Public Works Director Frank Senteno dated July 21, 2011. Interim Public Works Director Senteno presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Action: To cancel the contract to demolish the restroom, lock the restroom until such time as it is needed to use as is, and save for now the money earmarked for the demolition. Motion Tucker, second Bobko. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. At 12:03 a.m., the order of the agenda went to Other Matters, City Council. 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER a. AB455 PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT: LOCAL PUBLIC EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS – APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REQUIRES THAT 50% BE APPOINTED FROM A LIST SUPPLIED BY LARGEST EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION. (Continued from meeting of July 12, 2011) Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated July 7, 2011. Action: Council consensus was to continue the item because of the lateness of the hour. b. APPROVAL PROCESS FOR ISSUING PRESS RELEASES ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated July 18, 2011. City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13253 Action: Council consensus was to continue the item because of the lateness of the hour. 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS – CITY COUNCIL a. CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. (Continued from meeting of July 12, 2011) Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated July 5, 2011. Action: Council consensus was to continue the item because of the lateness of the hour. b. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE HEALTHY EATING ACTIVE LIVING CITIES CAMPAIGN. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated July 21, 2011. Supplemental email from Ken Hartley received July 26. Action: Council consensus was to continue the item because of the lateness of the hour. 9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL (a) Request from Mayor Fishman to determine level of interest in a proposal by Bryan Winters for a pedestrian bridge across Pier Avenue at Pier/Valley/Ardmore intersection. Mayor Fishman spoke to his item , noting that Mr. Winters had indicated he believed there was potentially $3 million in grant money. Proposed Action: To agendize the subject at a future City Council meeting. Motion Mayor Fishman. The motion failed due to lack of Council support. (b) Request from Mayor Pro Tempore Duclos to review the City Treasurer position. Mayor Pro Tem Duclos withdrew his item, suggesting the issue be addressed in the fall when the Council discusses the 10% cut in City expenses. City Manager Burrell indicated that City Treasurer was an elected position and no changes could be made until 2015 because the nomination process for the November 8 election had already begun. (c) Request from Mayor Pro Tempore Duclos for a review of City policy for sidewalk cleaning on Pier Avenue. Mayor Pro Tem Duclos spoke to his item. City Council Minutes 07-26-11 Page 13254 Action: To agendize the subject at a future City Council meeting. Motion Mayor pro tem Duclos, supported by Tucker and Mayor Fishman. (d) Request from Councilmember Tucker to review the process for charging for multiple responses to house parties. Councilmember Tucker spoke to his item. Action: To agendize the subject at a future City Council meeting. Motion Tucker, supported by Duclos and Mayor Fishman. ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned, on Wednesday, July 27, 2011, at the hour of 12:14 a.m. to a Regular meeting to be held on August 9, 2011, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. _______________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Deputy City Clerk ATTACHMENT 10 - HBMC, Section 5.04.230 Annual cost of living adjustment of taxes. 5.04.230 Annual cost of living adjustment of taxes. Taxes imposed in the Schedule of Taxes on a basis other than a percentage of gross receipts and the maximum tax established for businesses taxed on the basis of gross receipts shall be adjusted on an annual basis using the percentage increase in the cost of living, not to exceed three percent (3%) as calculated by the United States Bureau of Statistics for the Los Angeles—Riverside— Orange County Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area for All Urban Consumers. City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 21-0643 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 PURCHASE OF POLICE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE SYSTEM (Chief Paul LeBaron) Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council: 1.Award the Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System (ERRCS)five-year contract in the amount of $83,750 to Commline Inc.; and 2.Authorize the City Manager to execute and the City Clerk to attest to the proposed agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney (Attachment 2). Executive Summary: The Hermosa Beach Police Department (HBPD)has poor to non-existent police radio coverage in its subterranean (basement)level.The basement level is a highly used area for day-to-day operations and contains several officer workstations,making radio reception essential for police operations. Currently,there are two stationary police radios wired into the basement level to facilitate communication needs;however,if a staff member is anywhere in the basement level other than those two locations,they will most likely not be able to hear incoming radio traffic or be able to broadcast outgoing traffic.This problem can be fixed with the installation of an Emergency Responder Radio Communications System (ERRCS).A Request for Proposal (RFP)for the design, installation,and maintenance of an ERRCS was published on September 7,2021 (Attachment 1).A qualified staff committee reviewed the three proposals received and recommends award of the contract to Commline Inc. Background: HBPD relies on both portable and vehicle mounted radios,in conjunction with a series of radio repeaters,for two-way communication between the dispatch center and HBPD officers.Radio reception is generally reliable in most outdoor environments;however,indoor reception diminishes when confronted with enough physical barriers. HBPD is located within a two-story building with a ground level,and a subterranean level.Police radio reception is generally acceptable in the HBPD’s ground level;however,it is poor to non-existent City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 5 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0643 radio reception is generally acceptable in the HBPD’s ground level;however,it is poor to non-existent in its subterranean (basement)level where most of the department’s personnel conduct daily activities.Two stationary police radios are wired into the basement level to facilitate communication needs;however,if a staff member is anywhere in the basement level other than those two locations, they will most likely not be able to hear incoming radio traffic or be able to broadcast outgoing traffic. The inability to communicate via the police radio system poses a public safety concern due to a potentially diminished response to the community’s public safety needs. To address radio communication concerns,the City requested a radio coverage test to evaluate options for improving radio reception.On July 21,2021,Comsec Associates,Inc.conducted a radio coverage test which confirmed that the entire basement level of the HBPD had essentially no radio reception.Indoor radio reception can be improved through the installation of an Emergency Responder Radio Communications System (ERRCS).An ERRCS essentially collects radio signals outside of a building,and then boosts them into a building.As part of the test Comsec Associates, Inc.provided HBPD with technical recommendations regarding the installation of an ERRCS that included a Bidirectional Amplifier (BDA)and a Distributed Antenna System (DAS),which would allow for acceptable radio communications in the station’s basement level. The installation of an ERRCS would also bring the HBPD into compliance with Section 510.2 of the 2019 Edition of the California Fire Code (CFC).The 2019 Edition of the CFC was adopted by the City of Hermosa Beach as our Fire Prevention Code pursuant to 15.20.010 HBMC;and it is located within the California Department of General Services’California Building Standards Code.CFC Section 510.2 states,“Existing buildings shall be provided with approved radio coverage for emergency responders as required in Chapter 11.” On September 7,2021,the City commenced the procurement process for an ERRCS by publishing a Request for Proposal (RFP)(Attachment 1)that incorporated Comsec Associates,Inc.’s technical recommendations for the proposed system.The proposal deadline was September 30,2021.Three companies submitted proposals prior to the end of the proposal deadline:Avidex;BearCom;and Commline Inc. Analysis The RFP provided a general description of the intended ERRCS,which included basic technical requirements,as well as a specific list of materials which were to be incorporated into the system. Additionally,the RFP requested each proposal to include a transmittal/offer letter,an organizational diagram of key staff,brief resumes of key staff,a statement of qualifications including descriptions of similar projects,training that would be provided to staff,warranty coverage,insurance requirements, a delivery schedule,a sample contract for a similar service,and a fee proposal including five years of maintenance costs. The RFP results are summarized below. Bidder Contract Amount (5 years) Avidex $135,720 Bearcom $48,96.74* Commline Inc.$83,750 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 2 of 5 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0643 Bidder Contract Amount (5 years) Avidex $135,720 Bearcom $48,96.74* Commline Inc.$83,750 *The proposal submitted by Bearcom did not specify if the purchase price included five years of maintenance as requested by the RFP. On October 7,2021,a committee of HBPD staff reviewed the proposals.Commline Inc’s proposal met the required specifications of the ERRCS and was deemed to be the most cost effective. Additionally,its proposal offers a 15-day timeline to install an ERRCS.Commline Inc.’s proposal includes an initial purchase and installation price of $68,550 and four additional years of annual maintenance fees of $3,800 for a total price of $83,750.This price includes a total of five years of maintenance services. Avidex proposed a solution that essentially satisfied the HBPD’s requirements,but had the highest proposed cost ($135,720),proposed the longest to install (80 days),and its literature did not communicate an expertise with ERRCS installation.BearCom appeared to have more familiarity with ERRCS installation,and its proposal cost the least ($48,963.74);however,they left out several important details from its proposal,including how long it would take them to install the system,and whether its price included five years of maintenance services. Based on the review,staff recommends awarding the ERRCS contract to Commline Inc.Commline Inc.’s proposal complies with the bidding specifications and requirements and incorporated a statement of qualifications that listed the installation of ERRCS at four other public safety related buildings within the last two years.Based on Commline Inc.’s proposal the company has been in business since 2000 and has extensive experience installing ERRCS. General Plan Consistency: This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below: Public Safety Element Goal 5. High quality police and fire protection services provided to residents and visitors. Policies: ·5.2 High level of response.Achieve optimal utilization of allocated public safety resources and provide desired levels of response, staffing, and protection within the community. ·5.3 Use of technology.Provide and use smart surveillance technology and communication City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 3 of 5 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0643 ·5.3 Use of technology.Provide and use smart surveillance technology and communication systems to improve crime prevention and inform the community regarding actions to take in case of emergency. Goal 6.Hermosa Beach is prepared for,responds to and recovers quickly from natural disasters. Policies: ·6.3 Invest in critical facilities.Dedicate funds to upgrade and maintain essential facilities (including EOC,Police/Fire Facilities,and City Hall)to make them more resilient to the potential impacts of natural disasters. Fiscal Impact: The City has sufficient funds allocated in the Police Equipment Replacement account,715-2101- 5405,to enter into a contract with Commline Inc for the purchase and installation of an Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System. A breakdown of annual contract fees is provided below. Commline Inc 5-Year Contract Year 1 $ 68,550 Year 2 $ 3,800 Year 3 $ 3,800 Year 4 $ 3,800 Year 5 $ 3,800 Total $ 83,750 Year one includes the initial costs to purchase and install the system and first year maintenance fees. Future maintenance fees would be included in the Police Department’s annual budget process. Agreement Request Request Amount FY 2021-22 Budget Dept. Account #Total Contract Amount $ 83,750 715-2101-5405 $ 83,750 Attachments: 1.RFP - HBPD ERRCS 2021 2.ERRCS Contract with Commline, Inc. Respectfully Submitted by: Landon Phillips, Police Lieutenant Concur: Paul LeBaron, Police Chief Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 4 of 5 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0643 Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 5 of 5 powered by Legistar™ 1 Request for Proposal Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH Police Department 540 Pier Ave. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 (310) 318-0360 City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2. RFP SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................ 5 3. SCOPE OF SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 5 4. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ......................................................................................... 8 5. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................... 10 6. TERMS AND CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 12 7. EVALUATION & SELECTION PROCESS ......................................................................... 16 8. ADMINISTRATION SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................................. 16 City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 3 BID TITLE: Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Police Department RELEASE DATE: September 7, 2021 DUE DATE: September 30, 2021 @ 5:00 p.m. PST Notice is hereby given that the City of Hermosa Beach will receive sealed proposals for qualified and experienced Vendors to provide an Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System (ERRCS). The primary intent of this Request For Proposal (hereinafter “RFP”) is to enter into an agreement with a contractor capable of providing the design, installation, and warranty maintenance, of an Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System (ERRCS) at the Hermosa Beach Police Department (HBPD), located at 540 Pier Ave, Hermosa Beach, California. This system shall support currently required frequencies used by HBPD, by incorporating an In-Building UHF T-Band Bidirectional Amplifier (BDA) and Distributed Antenna System (DAS). The system shall be in compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code and FCC Licensee Requirements. The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids, to waive any informality, and to accept the proposal deemed to be in the best interest of the City of Hermosa Beach. Proposals should be submitted to the office of Lieutenant Landon Phillips by 5:00 pm, September 30, 2021. City of Hermosa Beach, Hermosa Beach, California Paul LeBaron, Chief of Police Dated this 26th day of August, 2021. www.hermosabeach.gov Phone: (310) 318-0360, FAX: (310) 798-8926 BEACH HERMOSA OF CITY 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA, 90254 City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 4 Attention Vendors – It is the City of Hermosa Beach’s intent to enter into an agreement with a contractor on a suitable value approach. We will treat suitable value as a combination of availability, fit, short-term costs and long-term costs that, in totality, are deemed to best meet the City of Hermosa Beach’s needs. 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Hermosa Beach (“the City”) is seeking proposals from qualified and experienced Vendors to provide the design, installation, and warranty maintenance, of an Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System (ERRCS; hereinafter referred to as “SYSTEM”) at the Hermosa Beach Police Department (HBPD), located at 540 Pier Ave, Hermosa Beach, California. This SYSTEM shall support currently required frequencies used by the HBPD, by incorporating an In-Building UHF T-Band Bidirectional Amplifier (BDA) and a Distributed Antenna System (DAS), and shall be in compliance with Section 510 of the California Fire Code and FCC Licensee Requirements. As a result of this RFP, the City expects to receive proposals that will address how the product(s) meet or exceed City requirements as defined in this RFP. The City intends to work with selected Vendors, as desired, to conduct onsite Vendor demonstrations of their product(s), and to perform extensive hands-on field and/or bench evaluation and testing of the Vendor’s product(s). Vendors will be permitted to conduct an onsite walkthrough of the Police Department prior to the proposal deadline by request. Once the HBPD’s evaluation committee has assessed the RFP responses based on their evaluation of the product(s), the City desires to select a complete SYSTEM, and to enter into contract(s) for the purchase and installation of the SYSTEM, as well as for training and warranty maintenance. This RFP provides a list of required services, general information, instructions for submitting responses, and Vendor selection procedures. The City's goal is to procure what is evaluated to be the best SYSTEM, inclusive of all SYSTEM components. Ideally, the selected Vendor will be capable of providing a comprehensive and interlinked SYSTEM in its entirety; however, Vendors may submit proposals for the entire SYSTEM, or any combination of one or more of the SYSTEM components and related installation and support services. In the event that the City procures individual SYSTEM components from separate Vendors, it is preferred the successful Vendors agree to cooperatively work together to create a seamless SYSTEM deployment (subject to approval by all involved parties). Joint proposals from a partnership of multiple vendors will also be accepted. Where a joint proposal is submitted, the proposing Vendors must provide a full explanation of the partnering relationship, and must identify a single Vendor who will be solely responsible for contractual performance, and who shall be the sole point of contact with the City with regard to contractual matters. This RFP is issued for the City of Hermosa Beach. The issuing office is the City of Hermosa Beach’s Police Department, which is the sole point of contact for this request; and the contact person at the HBPD is Lieutenant Landon Phillips. Lieutenant Phillips can be reached at lphillips@hermosabeach.gov or by calling (310) 318-0336. City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 5 The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to accept or reject any or all bids, to waive any informality, to negotiate separately with competing Vendors, and to accept the proposal(s) deemed to be in the best interest of the City of Hermosa Beach. Vendors with local government and public safety technology experience are preferred, but not required. Local vendors or vendors with a local presence are also preferred, but not required. 2. RFP SCHEDULE The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to modify these dates if extenuating circumstances necessitate. Release of RFP September 7, 2021 Onsite Walkthrough by Request September 13 to September 16, 2021 Question Deadline September 21, 2021 by 5 p.m. Proposal Deadline September 30, 2021 by 5 p.m. Vendor Selection / Proposal to City Council *November 9, 2021 Award Contract November 2021 *Tentative City Council proposal and contract award date, subject to change at City’s discretion 3. SCOPE OF SERVICES Instructions: Initial the bottom of each page of the Scope of Services and remit as part of your Proposal as Attachment A, acknowledging a demonstrated understanding of the Scope of Services. 3.1 General Provisions It is the intent of this SCOPE to describe the minimum requirements for the SYSTEM requested by HBPD. HBPD is located within a continuous structure that starts with the Hermosa Beach City Hall on its south end, continues with HBPD in the center, and ends with the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s Station House 100 on its north end. HBPD has two stories; a ground level upper story, and a subterranean lower story that extends southbound to the subterranean bottom story of City Hall. Police radio reception is generally acceptable in HBPD’s upper level; however, it is poor to non-existent in its lower level. The goal of this RFP is to enable effective emergency responder radio communications in the lower level of the HBPD and the neighboring lower level of City Hall by building an Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System; essentially, a signal booster that supports currently required frequencies used by HBPD, by incorporating an In-Building UHF T-Band Bidirectional Amplifier (BDA) and a Distributed Antenna System (DAS), that shall be in compliance with City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 6 Section 510 of the California Fire Code as well as FCC Licensee Requirements. Technical specifications for this SYSTEM are located in section 4.1 (General Requirements). The successful Vendor will be required to furnish all labor, equipment, and materials; and install the SYSTEM. The successful Vendor will also be required to provide a training plan to acquaint applicable City staff and contractors with its operator level usage and maintenance requirements. The cost of the proposed training plan shall be included in the proposal. All items, details of construction, services, or features not specifically mentioned which are regularly furnished in order to provide a SYSTEM shall be furnished at the RFP price and shall conform in strength, quality, and workmanship to that usually provided by the practice indicated in this SCOPE, and the associated components. Under the contract awarded from this RFP, the successful Vendor will be the single point of contact for all installation, maintenance, and support of all hardware and software acquired in the solicitation, and will be required to have the capability to support all components of the SYSTEM in an integrated manner. 3.2 Equipment Warranty Vendors shall include a copy of each manufacturer’s written warranty statement for each piece of equipment furnished and installed into the SYSTEM with their proposal. Vendors shall also provide the details of all warranties that are applicable to the services and equipment being provided to the City. The successful bidder shall provide the City of Hermosa Beach with a full and complete system warranty, including all parts and labor required to ensure the entire SYSTEM continues functioning to manufacturers’ specifications, and is compliant with applicable codes and ordinances for a period of one calendar year after final acceptance of the SYSTEM. Final acceptance shall be acknowledged by the issuance of the final invoice payment by the City or its agent. During the warranty period, the successful bidder shall be responsible for fault isolating, removing, and replacing, defective component(s) including but not limited to all active and passive components, parts, assemblies, cabling, connectors, and power systems, at no additional cost. The successful bidder shall also be responsible for arranging for the repair and return of the defective component(s) to the manufacturer, and re-installation and checkout of the equipment upon its return to service, for the duration of the warranty period. During the warranty period the successful bidder shall provide a qualified technician to respond to trouble calls associated with equipment failure or due to faulty workmanship of any component(s). Required response time shall be no more than two calendar days, weekends excluded. City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 7 3.3 Project Manager/Key Personnel The Vendor shall provide a full time Project Manager and key personnel who will be responsible for project oversight and delivery of the SYSTEM. The Project Manager shall be the single point of contact for the City and will be responsible for the management, implementation and on-going trouble shooting of the SYSTEM during its installation. The Project Manager shall coordinate efforts with the City designee. The Project Manager shall be available to the City at all times by telephone during the course of the project and on-site within seventy-two hours of notification if necessary and requested, to respond to City needs, questions and/or issues. The Project Manager will develop in consultation with the City a detailed implementation and project plan for the SYSTEM. Resumes for all of the key personnel assigned to this project shall be provided with the proposal. 3.4 Subcontractors The Vendor will ensure that all employees and subcontractor employees that the Vendor assigns to this project will have successfully passed a background check. The City reserves the right to reject any subcontractor and/or subcontractor employee. Should a subcontractor be rejected, the Vendor will be required to provide an acceptable alternate subcontractor. Should a subcontractor fail to provide the established level of service and response, the Vendor will be required to subcontract with another agency. Such action shall be provided in a timely manner so as not to cause delays to the project schedule. Any additional costs associated with securing a competent subcontractor shall be the responsibility of the Vendor. 3.5 Condition of Facilities The Vendor shall be responsible for ensuring that all City work areas are left in a clean and orderly fashion at the end of each day. 3.6 Vendor Coordination Responsibilities The Vendor shall be responsible for coordinating the design and installation of the SYSTEM with the City and the vendor’s subcontractors and suppliers involved in this project. 3.7 Delivery Schedule Vendor shall provide an integrated project timeline and implementation plan for the SYSTEM. The project timeline and implementation plan shall include details for all phases of activity for the project including all deliverables and major milestones. It shall allow the project goals and deadlines of the City to be met. This proposed project timeline and implementation plan shall be finalized during the negotiation phase. City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 8 3.8 Project Implementation Status Reports The Vendor shall provide weekly updates on the project timeline and implementation plan to the City’s point of contact. 3.9 Training The Vendor must provide a plan for in-depth technical training for City employees and contractors on SYSTEM components and use of the SYSTEM. All required instruction manuals, qualified instructors’ cost, and travel and lodging costs for instructors, in addition to class materials shall be furnished by the Vendor and included in the Fee Proposal. 3.10 Cost Vendors shall identify all costs for SYSTEM components, installation, training, maintenance, overhead costs, etc. The proposal should itemize each SYSTEM component. Maintenance costs shall be provided for a term of five (5) years, priced annually, from date of SYSTEM acceptance. 4. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 4.1 General Requirements The successful bidder shall design and install an Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System (Signal Booster) that provides Section 510 C.F.C. and FCC Licensee compliant analog and digital voice radio communications coverage for the Hermosa Beach Police Department. Technical information is provided to ensure all bidders design to the same specifications. It will be the responsibility of the successful bidder to determine and verify the coverage, azimuth, and gain of donor antennas, location and type of distribution antennas, signal levels, amplification, and filtering requirements, of the distributed antenna system to ensure it meets or exceeds all requirements of California Fire Code Section 510 as well as FCC Licensee Requirements, and does not interfere with any FCC licensed radio communications system. This is a turnkey system. The successful bidder shall install the following at minimum. 1. Bidirectional amplifier(s); 2. Battery power system; 3. Antennas (donor and distribution); 4. Antenna feedlines; 5. Connectors; 6. Lightning arrestor; 7. #2 (minimum) ground wire from ground bus bar to antenna; 8. #2 (minimum) ground wire from ground bus bar to lightning arrestor; 9. #2 (minimum) ground wire from ground bus bar to grounding point; 10. Copper ground bus bar(s); 11. Sleeve for all penetrations (including in garage); City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 9 12. Fire stopping for all rated penetrations; 13. Metal conduit boxes; 14. All penetrations; 15. 1½ inch or greater diameter EMT conduit for antenna feedlines; 16. Waterproof power connections 17. Connection to alarm annunciator; 18. Equipment mounting; 19. Antenna mounting; 20. Backboard for wall mounting; 21. UL 2524 certified/listed equipment; 22. Final inspection by a third-party designated by the City. Penetrations, a 120 VAC/20 Amp dedicated circuit, a grounding point, and alarm contacts, will be provided by the City. UL certified/listed standby battery power shall be provided to maintain the system in continuous operation for a minimum of 24 hours after loss of AC power. Standby power and interconnection of standby power with the bidirectional amplifiers shall maintain NEMA 4 or NEMA 3R integrity. Distribution of radio frequency energy throughout the facility shall be accomplished with a distributed antenna system consisting of antennas, power dividers, and splitters, connected with plenum-rated feedline. Exposed feedline shall be enclosed in 1½ inch or greater EMT conduit. All exposed cabling shall be enclosed in 1½ inch or greater diameter EMT conduit and electrical junction boxes. The bidirectional amplifier, donor antenna, AC power, battery condition, and standby power, shall be monitored by an annunciator in the Watch Commanders’ office. The successful bidder shall provide all management, supervision, personnel, engineering, equipment, tools, materials, subcontractors, and transportation necessary to design, install, maintain, adjust, and repair the Signal Booster system and components in accordance with: (1) the manufacturer’s recommendations and specifications; (2) industry standards and codes including but, not limited to National Electric Safety Codes, National Electrical Code, etc.; (3) Federal, State, and local regulations; (4) Federal environmental standards; (5) Federal Communications (FCC) regulations; and (6) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. 4.2 Required Coverage Areas The distributed antenna system shall provide radio coverage compliant with Section 510 of the California Fire Code and FCC Licensee Requirements, specifically -95 dBm minimum signal level throughout 95% of each floor or level, - 95 dBm measured at the radio system within the donor site from 95% of each City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 10 floor or level, -95 dBm minimum signal level throughout 99% of each critical area, and -95 dBm measured at the radio system within the donor site from 99% of each critical area. DAQ (NIST 99-358) shall be 3.4 or better in 100% of grid test areas. 4.3 Antenna Density A sufficient number of antennas shall be installed to ensure the project is fully compliant with Section 510.4.2.8 CFC while using a maximum Signal Booster/BDA uplink gain of 65 dB, and without additional adjustment to the Signal Booster/BDA. 4.4 Permits and Inspections The successful bidder shall be responsible for obtaining all required permits for the project, including the preparation and submittal of all plans, specifications, and other documents, which may be required by the City of Hermosa Beach for the issuance of any required permits. All documents shall be submitted for approval prior to submittal to the City. Obtaining inspections required by the City of Hermosa Beach shall be the responsibility of the successful bidder. Completion of any and all corrections required by the City of Hermosa Beach as the result of inspection shall be completed at no additional cost. 4.5 Time is of the Essence This project shall be completed as expeditiously as possible. 5. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Although the City requires no specific format, this section is intended to provide guidelines to the Vendor regarding features that the City will look for and expect to be included in the proposal. 5.1 Content & Format The City requests that proposals submitted be organized and presented in a neat and logical format and are relevant to these services. Vendor’s proposals shall be clear, accurate, and comprehensive. Excessive or irrelevant material will not be favorably received. Proposals shall use a 12 point font size. The proposal should include the following: 1. Transmittal/offer letter 2. Page numbering 3. Index/Table of Contents 4. Approach City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 11 5. Team Organization including an organization diagram and time commitment of key staff 6. Statement of Qualifications including descriptions of similar projects by key staff to be assigned during the term of the contract 7. Brief resumes of key staff 8. Fee Proposal 9. A sample contract of similar service between Vendor and City to be reviewed by the City Attorney. 5.2 Approach A description of the Vendor’s approach and work program to meet the City’s objectives shall be included. It should explain the technical approach, methodology, and specific tasks and activities that will be performed to address the specific issues and work items. 5.3 Team Organization The purpose of this section is to describe the organization of the project team including subcontractors and key staff. A project manager and an alternate project manager shall be named whom shall be the prime contact and be responsible for coordinating all activities with the City. An organization diagram shall be submitted showing all key team members and illustrating the relationship between the City, the project manager, key staff, and subcontractors. There also should be a brief description of the role and responsibilities of all key staff and subcontractors identified in the team organization. 5.4 Statement of Qualifications The information provided in this section should describe the qualifications of the Vendor and key staff in performing projects within the past five (5) years that are similar in scope and size to demonstrate competence to perform these services. The projects listed should be those that the key staff named for this project were responsible for performing. Information shall include: 1. Names of key staff that participated on named projects and their specific responsibilities. 2. The client’s name, contact person, addresses, and telephone numbers. 3. A brief description of type and extent of services provided. 4. Completion dates (estimated, if not yet completed). 5. Total costs of the projects. Brief resumes of key personnel who will provide these services demonstrating their qualifications and experience should be included. Resumes should highlight education, relevant experience, licenses, and specific responsibilities for services described. City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 12 5.5 Fee Proposal Compensation for services provided shall be based upon the Vendor’s detailed Fee Proposal to furnish the services and equipment detailed in their proposal. The Fee Proposal shall identify all costs associated with the comprehensive SYSTEM, including components, installation, project management, training, support, and maintenance. Maintenance cost shall be provided for a term of five (5) years, priced annually, from date of SYSTEM acceptance. This information will be used by the City staff to evaluate the reasonableness of the fee proposal, and may be used in negotiating the final fee amounts for the contract agreement. Reimbursable expenses shall not be allowed unless negotiated prior to a contract. Price escalations during the contract term are disfavored and will not be allowed unless negotiated prior to execution of contract. 5.6 Statement of Offer & Signature The Proposal(s) shall contain a statement that the proposal(s) are “a firm offer for a 90-day period,” and they shall be signed by an individual authorized to act on behalf of the Vendor. 6. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 6.1 Insurance Requirements 1. Types of Required Coverages The successful Vendor shall procure and maintain in full force and effect during the term of the contract, the following policies of insurance. If the existing policies do not meet the Insurance Requirements set forth herein, the Vendor agrees to amend, supplement, or endorse the policies to do so. a. Commercial General Liability: Commercial General Liability Insurance which affords coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office “occurrence” form CG 00 01, with minimum limits of at least $2,000,000 each occurrence, and if written with an aggregate, the aggregate shall be double the occurrence limit. b. Products-Completed Operations: Contractor shall procure and submit to the City evidence of insurance for a period of at least three (3) years from the time that all work under this Contract is completed. c. Automobile Liability Insurance: Automobile Liability Insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form CA 0001 covering “Any Auto” (Codel 1) with minimum limits of $1,000,000 each accident. City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 13 d. Professional Liability: Professional Liability insurance with minimum limits of $3,000,000 each claim. Covered Professional Services shall specifically include all work to be performed under the contract and delete any exclusion that may potentially affect the work to be performed. e. Workers’ Compensation: Workers’ Compensation Insurance, as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 each accident for bodily injury, and $1,000,000 each employee for bodily injury by disease. 2. Endorsements Insurance policies shall not be in compliance if they include any limiting provision or endorsement that has not been submitted to the City for approval. a. The insurance coverages required by Section 1.a. Commercial General Liability; and 1.c. Automobile Liability Insurance shall contain the following provisions or be endorsed to provide the following: (1) Additional Insured: The City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, boards, agents, and representatives shall be additional insureds with regard to liability and defense of suits or claims arising out of the performance of the Contract. Additional Insured Endorsements shall not: 1. Exclude “Contractual Liability” 2. Restrict coverage to the “Sole” liability of contractor 3. Exclude “Third-Party-Over Actions” 4. Contain any other exclusion contrary to the Contract (2) Primary Insurance: This insurance shall be primary and any other insurance whether primary, excess, umbrella or contingent insurance, including deductible, or self-insurance available to the insureds added by endorsement shall be in excess of and shall not contribute with this insurance. (3) The policy or policies of insurance required by Section 1.e. Workers’ Compensation shall be endorsed, as follows: 1. Waiver of Subrogation: A waiver of subrogation stating that the insurer waives all rights of subrogation against the indemnified parties. 3. Notice of Cancellation Required insurance policies shall not be cancelled or the coverage reduced until a thirty (30) day written notice of cancellation has City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 14 been served upon the City except ten (10) days shall be allowed for non-payment of premium. 4. Evidence of Insurance The Vendor, concurrently with the execution of the contract, and as a condition precedent to the effectiveness thereof, shall deliver either certified copies of the required policies, or original certificates and endorsements on forms approved by the City. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of any such policy, evidence of insurance showing that such insurance coverage has been renewed or extended shall be filed with the City. If such coverage is cancelled or reduced, Contractor shall, within ten (10) days after receipt of written notice of such cancellation or reduction of coverage, file with the City evidence of insurance showing that the required insurance has been reinstated or has been provided through another insurance company or companies. 5. Deductible or Self-Insured Retention Any deductible or self-insured retention must be approved in writing by the City and shall protect the indemnified parties in the same manner and to the same extent as they would have been protected had the policy or policies not contained a deductible or self-insured retention. 6. Contractual Liability The coverage provided shall apply to the obligations assumed by the Contractor under the indemnity provisions of this contract. 7. Failure to Maintain Coverage Contractor agrees to suspend and cease all operations hereunder during such period of time as the required insurance coverage is not in effect and evidence of insurance has not been furnished to the City. The City shall have the right to withhold any payment due Contractor until Contractor has fully complied with the insurance provisions of this Contract. In the event that the Contractor’s operations are suspended for failure to maintain required insurance coverage, the Contractor shall not be entitled to an extension of time for completion of the Work because of production lost during suspension. 8. Acceptability of Insurers Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII and authorized to do business in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 15 insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law. Any other rating must be approved in writing in accordance with the City. 9. Claims Made Policies If coverage is written on a claims-made basis, the retroactive date on such insurance and all subsequent insurance shall coincide or precede the effective date of the initial Contractor’s Contract with the City and continuous coverage shall be maintained or an extended reporting period shall be exercised for a period of at least three (3) years from termination or expiration of this Contract. Upon expiration or termination of coverage of required insurance, Contractor shall procure and submit to City evidence of “tail” coverage or an extended reporting coverage period endorsement for the period of at least three (3) years from the time that all work under this contract is completed. 10. Insurance for Subcontractors Contractor shall be responsible for causing Subcontractors to purchase the same types and limits of insurance in compliance with the terms of this Contract/Agreement, including adding the City as an Additional Insured to the Subcontractor’s policies. 6.2 Standard Form of Agreement The vendor will enter into an agreement with the City based upon the contents of the RFP and the vendor's proposal. The Vendor shall include a sample contract of services, within the last 3 years, as part of the Proposal. Upon review of submitted proposals and Vendor selection, the City will provide the selected Vendor a standard form of agreement. The Vendor shall carefully review the agreement, and respond with a description of any exceptions requested to the standard contract. The City will award the Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System Contract to the selected vendor upon City Council approval. 6.3 Disclaimer This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract, or to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of the proposal. The City reserves the right to extend the due date for the proposal, to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified vendor, or to cancel this RFP in part or in its entirety. The City may require the selected vendor to participate in negotiations and to submit such technical, fee, or other revisions of their proposals as may result from negotiations. 6.4 Assigned Representatives The City will assign a responsible representative to administer the contract, and to assist the vendor in obtaining information. The vendor also shall assign a responsible representative (project manager) and an alternate, who shall be identified in the proposal. The vendor’s representative will remain in responsible charge of the vendor’s duties from the notice-to-proceed through project City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 16 completion. If the vendor’s primary representative should be unable to continue with the project, then the alternate representative identified in the proposal shall become the project manager. The City’s representative shall first approve any substitution of representatives or subcontractors identified in the proposal in writing. The City reserves the right to review and approve/disapprove all key staff and subcontractor substitution or removal, and may consider such changes not approved to be a breach of contract. 6.5 Business License A business license will be required of the vendor and any subcontractors for services performed in connection with any agreement entered into through this RFP process. 7. EVALUATION & SELECTION PROCESS The City's selection of qualified Vendor(s) will be based on the following: • Quality and completeness of submitted proposal • Understanding of project objectives and SYSTEM requirements • Project approach • Project timeline and implementation and training plan • Fee Proposal/Proposed Cost • Support and services • Qualifications and experience with similar types of efforts • Professional references • SYSTEM capability Vendors will be notified of any additional required information and/or demonstrations and product testing after the written proposals have been evaluated. Additional information related to the vendor selection process will be made available in the future once the City has executed this contract. Please refrain from making any verbal inquires or requests for a formal debriefing related to the subject RFP until the City of Hermosa Beach completes the ongoing contract process. 8. ADMINISTRATION SPECIFICATIONS 8.1 The City of Hermosa Beach’s Rights to Proposals All proposals, upon submission to the City of Hermosa Beach, shall become its property for use as deemed appropriate. By submitting a proposal, the Vendor covenants not to make any claim for or have any right to damages because of any misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the specification, or because of any misinformation or lack of information. The City of Hermosa Beach reserves the right to take one or more of the following actions as determined in the best interest of the organization: 1. to accept or reject in whole or in part any or all proposals; 2. to cancel this RFP in whole or in part without prior notice. Thereafter, City may issue a solicitation for new proposals; 3. City makes no guarantee as to the usage of the services by City; City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 17 4. to waive, at its discretion, any minor errors, informalities or irregularities, which the City deems correctable or otherwise not warranting rejection of the RFP; 5. to correct any arithmetic errors in any or all proposals submitted; 6. to negotiate with any Vendor(s) as necessary to serve the best interest of the City and to negotiate the final contract(s) with the most responsive, responsible Vendor 7. to investigate the qualifications of any Vendor under consideration; 8. to disqualify a proposal upon evidence of collusion with the intent to defraud or other illegal practices on the part of the Vendor; 9. to require confirmation of information furnished by the Vendor; 10. to award one contract for the total SYSTEM, or make multiple awards for separate SYSTEM components if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the City. 11. to utilize any or all the ideas from proposals submitted; 12. to change the proposal’s due date upon appropriate notification; 13. to adopt any or all of a vendor’s proposal; and 14. to negotiate modifications to the scope and fee with selected Vendor(s) prior to contract award. 8.2 Interviews/On-Site Demonstrations/Equipment Testing City reserves the right to conduct interviews, and/or to require on-site demonstrations and/or product testing with some or all of the Vendors at any point during the evaluation process. However, City may determine that interviews/on-site demonstrations/equipment testing are not necessary. In the event interviews/on-site demonstrations/equipment testing are conducted, information provided during the interview/on-site demonstrations/equipment testing shall be taken into consideration when evaluating the stated criteria. City shall not reimburse the Vendor for the costs associated with the interview/on-site demonstrations/equipment testing process. Equipment testing will be held at a time and place specified by the City. The Vendor's key project team members will be invited to attend the interview and/or on-site demonstrations and/or equipment testing. The Vendors should be prepared to discuss at the interview, their specific experience providing services and equipment similar to those described in this RFP, project approach, estimated work effort, available resources, and other pertinent things distinguishing the Vendor from others. 8.3 Proposal Instructions Deadline for submitting proposals is 5:00 pm, Monday, September 30, 2021. Mail or deliver to: Hermosa Beach Police Department Attn: Lieutenant Landon Phillips 540 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Four (4) copies of each submission are required along with one electronic copy on CD or DVD. All submissions must be sealed in a package with reference to "RFP for HBPD ERRCS" on the outside. Proposals received after the deadline will be unopened, and returned to the Vendor. City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 18 8.4 Addendum and Supplements to the RFP If it becomes necessary to revise any part of this RFP, an addendum or revision will be transmitted to all prospective vendors by email and will be posted on the City’s website. Questions concerning the RFP document must be submitted in writing to City of Hermosa Beach, Attn: Lieutenant Landon Phillips, 540 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254, or email at lphillips@hermosabeach.gov. Questions will be received through September 21, 2021, at 5:00 pm. Vendors are cautioned that any statements made by the contact person that materially change any portion of the RFP shall not be relied upon unless subsequently ratified by a formal written amendment to this RFP. 8.5 Award of Contract The City reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals. A formal contract award is anticipated for the best overall vendor as determined by the Evaluation Committee and approved by City Council as a result of this RFP. The City reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to waive minor irregularities in proposals. A minor irregularity is a variation of the RFP, which does not affect the funding request, or gives one party an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by the other parties, or adversely impacts the interest of the City. Waivers, when granted, shall in no way modify the RFP requirements or excuse the party from full compliance with the RFP specifications and other contract requirements, if the party is awarded the contract. 8.6 False or Misleading Statements Any submittals containing, in the opinion of the City, false or misleading statements, will be rejected. 8.7 Prospective Vendor Costs Costs for developing submittals are entirely the responsibility of the vendor and shall not be chargeable in any manner to the City. 8.8 Evaluation Process The City will form an Evaluation Committee to review all submittals received by the deadline. Any submittal failing to meet any of the qualifications documented in this RFP may be rejected. The purpose for the Evaluation Committee is to recommend which vendor is best able to provide, install, maintain, and support the SYSTEM, to the City’s requirements, and within the City’s budget. A submission in response to this RFP indicates your acceptance of the City’s evaluation criteria. 8.9 Clarification of Proposals The City reserves the right to obtain clarification on any item in any vendor’s submittal, or to obtain additional related information necessary to properly evaluate the submittal. Failure of a vendor to respond to a request for more information may result in the proposal being rejected. 8.10 Confidential Information City of Hermosa Beach RFP – Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System 19 All responses to this RFP become the property of the City and will be kept confidential until such time as recommendation for award of contract has been announced. Thereafter, proposals are subject to public inspection and disclosure under the California Public Records Act (Cal. Government Code Section 6250, et seq.). If a vendor believes that any portion of its proposal is exempt from public disclosure, such portion may be marked "confidential." The City will use reasonable means to ensure that such confidential information is safeguarded, but will not be held liable for inadvertent disclosure of such materials, data, and information. Proposals marked "confidential" in their entirety will not be honored, and the City will not deny public disclosure of all or any portion of proposals so marked. By submitting information with portions marked "confidential", the Vendor represents it has a good faith belief that such material is exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act, and agrees to reimburse the City for, and to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against: (a) any and all claims, damages, losses, liabilities, suits, judgments, fines, penalties, costs, and expenses including, (collectively, "Claims") arising from or relating to the City’s non- disclosure of any such designated portions of a proposal if disclosure is deemed required by law or court order. Additionally, the City may request that the Vendor directly defend any action for disclosure of any information marked confidential. 8.11 City Use of RFP Ideas The City reserves the right to use any and all service and product ideas presented from prospective vendors. Selection or rejection of a vendor does not affect this right. 8.12 Copyrights and Patents The vendor shall hold the City of Hermosa Beach and its officers, agents, servants, and employees harmless from liability of any nature or kind because of any copyrighted information, secret or proprietary process, patented or unpatented invention, disclosed or used in response to this RFP, and agrees to defend, at its own expense, any and all actions brought against the City of Hermosa Beach or its officers, agents, servants, or employees, or the Vendor, alleging or arising from unauthorized use of such information, process, or invention. 8.13 Reliance on Information Vendors may rely only upon written information and/or instructions from the City given herein or subsequent to the issuance of this RFP. Vendors may not rely on any oral information and/or instructions given with regard to this RFP. 8.14 Replacement of Incompatible Staff The City reserves the right to request and receive a replacement for any vendor staff member whom the City, in its sole and absolute discretion, determines is not working effectively with the City’s staff assigned to this project, or who is inadequately qualified to perform the services to be provided, or who is unsuitable to be performing services in secure areas.   13700 Cimarron Ave., Gardena, CA 90249  Main: (310) 390‐8003 Fax: (310) 390‐4393  www.CommlineInc.com  1    SERVICE AGREEMENT LOCATION OF SERVICE City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 CUSTOMER City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Landon Phillips lphillips@hermosabeach.gov SERVICE PROVIDER Commline, Inc. 13700 Cimarron Ave. Gardena, CA 90249 (310) 390-8003 PROJECT SUMMARY The following service agreement is between Commline, Inc. and The City of Hermosa Beach. This agreement includes the purchase, installation, and configuration of the equipment in Exhibit A for the City’s BDA system, and is valid from ________ 2022 to ________ 2027, a five (5) year contract between the above-stated parties. ENGINEEERING SERVICES Commissioning Services – Radio (Engineering) BDA An FCC and equipment-certified engineer will commission and optimize the active equipment needed for coverage. Adjustments to the uplink and downlink levels will be made to ensure proper isolation, minimum interference and optimal performance for the system. The deliverable includes a report identifying donor site location, BDA settings, near far calculations and sweep data of the BDA. Commissioning to include the following bands: 450- 512 MHz in the UHF Band. TESTING SERVICES Commissioning Final Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System (ERRCS) Test – 20 Grid Test and Report A Commline FCC-certified technician will perform a comprehensive 20-grid per floor test using calibrated test equipment to determine the current signal strength coverage for each floor. This will also include the critical spaces. This test will comply with any applicable fire codes: IFC/ CFC510 (per building’s code requirement) and NFPA 1221 (per building’s code requirement). The Building Coverage Test report will include 1) the signal strength tests per floor per grid 2) external building readings 3) rooftop readings 4) DAQ (Delivered Audio Quality) (where applicable) 5) isolation testing and 6) any recommended action items. Commline will deliver the test results forty-eight (48) hours after completion of the test. Customer is responsible for providing all access to the site: contact info, any required PPE and any other pertinent info regarding the job. Bands tested: 450-512MHz This test is for a final building and performed at 100% or TCO date.   13700 Cimarron Ave., Gardena, CA 90249  Main: (310) 390‐8003 Fax: (310) 390‐4393  www.CommlineInc.com  2    Initial Emergency Responder Radio Coverage (ERRC) Test – 20 Grid Test and Report An FCC-certified technician will perform a comprehensive 20-grid per floor test using calibrated test equipment to determine the current signal strength coverage for each floor. This will also include the critical spaces. This test will comply with any applicable fire codes: IFC/ CFC510 (per building’s code requirement) and NFPA 1221 (per building’s code requirement). The Building Coverage Test report will include 1) the signal strength tests per floor per grid 2) external building readings 3) rooftop readings 4) DAQ (Delivered Audio Quality) (where applicable) and 5) any recommended action items. Commline will deliver the test results forty-eight (48) hours after completion of the test. City of Hermosa Beach is responsible for providing all access to site: contact info, any required PPE and any other pertinent info regarding the job. Bands tested: VHF, UHF, 700MHz. This test is not performed for acceptance testing. INSPECTION SERVICES Third Party Acceptance Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System (ERRCS) Test – 20 Grid Test and Report An FCC-certified technician will perform a comprehensive 20-grid per floor test using calibrated test equipment to determine the current signal strength coverage for each floor. This will also include the critical spaces. This test will comply with any applicable fire codes: IFC/ CFC510 (per building’s code requirement) and NFPA 1221 (per building’s code requirement). The Building Coverage Test report will include 1) the signal strength tests per floor per grid 2) external building readings 3) rooftop readings 4) DAQ (Delivered Audio Quality) (where applicable) 5) isolation testing and 6) any recommended action items. Commline will deliver the test results forty-eight (48) hours after completion of the test. Customer is responsible for providing all access to the test facility. FEE SUMMARY Full scope of project in Exhibit A on page three (3). Annual Maintenance Service Service  Rate  Quantity  Amount   Base fee for Inspection per BDA   $  3,000.00   1   $  3,000.00   Reoptimization and Recommission per BDA   $     600.00   1   $     600.00   Code Compliant RF signal; Strength Grid Test,  Analysis of Collected Data, Report Prep ‐ Per  Floor (Via a twenty‐grid test Pattern)  $     200.00   1   $     200.00   TOTAL YEARLY COMPLIANCE MAINTENANCE INSPECTION SERVICE:   $  3,800.00   To be billed annually; annual rate to be upheld for five (5) years total.   13700 Cimarron Ave., Gardena, CA 90249  Main: (310) 390‐8003 Fax: (310) 390‐4393  www.CommlineInc.com  3    EXHIBIT A QTY UNIT COST EXT COST 1 $ 34,200.00 $ 34,200.00 1 0 0 16 2 39 6 450 150 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $ 34,200.00 1 $ 22,500.00 $ 22,500.00 1 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 1 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 27,000.00 Special Notes:Sub‐Total 34,200.00$ Sales Tax (9.5%)3,249.00$ Labor 27,000.00$ Freight 301.00$ GRAND TOTAL 64,750.00$ 12" x 12" x 6" NEMA-4 ENCLOSURES 24" x 24" x 8" NEMA-4 ENCLOSURE FUSED SERVICE CUT OFF SWITCH Labor CLI System Commissioning Labor CLI Plans/iBwave 1/2" NM CONNECTORS UHF CEILING MOUNT LOW PRO DISTRIBUTION ANTENNA 10' GALVANIZED ANTENNA MAST *BBU TO BE PROVIDED BY CITY UPS* 24" RED PLENUM PIM RATED JUMPERS 1/2" NF CONNECTORS 1/2" RED PLENUM RATED RF TRANSMISSION CABLE 1/2" BLACK HELIAX RISER RATED RF TRANSMISSION CABLE 60" NON-PENETRATING TRI-POD ANT ROOF MNT w/MAT Labor Total: GROUND BUS BAR KIT - TIN EXTERIOR 2:1 UHF POWER DIVIDER 3:1 UHF POWER DIVIDER N/A NFPA 24 AH PS UL2524 BBU HD ANTENNA MAST CLAMP SET COUPLERS-VARIED VALUES 124-1000 MHz SURGE PROTECTOR 1/2" RF CABLE GROUNDING KIT GROUND BUS BAR KIT - COPPER INTERIOR ERRCS DAS SYSTEM LOCATION IDENTIFIER SIGNAGE UHF 9 ELEMENT, 11.2 DB YAGI DONOR ANTENNA CLASS "A" UHF CHANNELIZED PS UL2524 BDA RE: RFP for HBPD ERRCS MODEL/PART #DESCRIPTION Hardware Total: Labor Labor CLI P/W Eng/Install/Opt Includes: ERRCS PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS DAS   13700 Cimarron Ave., Gardena, CA 90249  Main: (310) 390‐8003 Fax: (310) 390‐4393  www.CommlineInc.com  4    EXCLUSIONS Equipment and/or material Installation Coax Testing/Terminating/Grounding/Labeling Providing Materials of any kind 2hr survivable riser for ERRCS solution, cable/fiber pathways, conduit, supports, etc. AC or DC dedicated power from “lock-on” circuit breaker Fire Alarm vendor coordination UL listing of the installed system (If applicable) Reprographics Work performed out of scope without PO or written approval PROPOSAL APPROVAL Commline, Inc. proposes to complete the work as outlined in the Project Summary. Additional charges will occur if changes are made to project scope once this document has been signed and/or differences between the allowance outlined above and the actual cost of these items varies. TERMS AND CONDITIONS These Terms and Conditions form part of an agreement for the provision by Commline of certain Services ("Agreement"). The parties to such Agreement agree to the following terms and conditions: 1. Commline Obligations. 1.1 Services. Commline shall provide the services set forth in this Agreement with respect to the communication system identified by Commline as the system for which Services will be provided ("System"), provided Customer has paid the fees set forth in this Agreement. 1.2 Qualifications. Commline represents and warrants that the Services shall be provided in a professional manner, consistent with industry standards. 2. Pricing and Payments for Base Support Services. 2.1 Pricing. Customer agrees to pay the Fees set forth in this Agreement. 3. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be five (5) years from signed acceptance. 4. Customer Obligations. 4.1 Point of Contact and Support. Customer's representative for coordination of the services shall be the Customer Contact specified on the first page of the Agreement. Customer also agrees to provide other appropriate support personnel as may be reasonably requested by Commline. 4.2 Site Readiness. During the Term, Customer agrees to ensure that the Project Site meets all applicable federal, state and local safety and workplace requirements. 4.3 Operating Conditions of the System. The System shall be operated by Customer in accordance with the manufacturers' operating guidelines and procedures. 4.5 Customer Representations. Customer agrees that: (a) Customer desires and has contracted for only the Services set forth in the Agreement; (b) Customer has the authority to engage Commline to provide the Services; and (c) Customer will comply with all laws, regulations and operating instructions pertaining to the use of the System and Services. 5. Termination. 5.1 Termination With Notice. Both parties shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without cause upon providing the other party with sixty (60) days' advance written notice. 6. Liability. 6.1 No consequential damages. Under no circumstances shall either party be liable in any way whatsoever to the other party, whether as a result of a claim or action in contract or tort (including negligence), patent infringement, copyright infringement or otherwise for any indirect, special, or consequential damages, including, but not limited to, loss of profit or revenues, loss of use of the system or any associated equipment, cost of capital, cost of substitute system, equipment or service, or downtime costs, or otherwise arising out of City of   13700 Cimarron Ave., Gardena, CA 90249  Main: (310) 390‐8003 Fax: (310) 390‐4393  www.CommlineInc.com  5    Hermosa Beach inc. - ERRC testing or related to the agreement or the breach hereof, whether or not such damages are foreseeable and whether or not the parties have been advised of the possibility of such damages. 7. Indemnification. Commline shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against all liability, loss, damage, expense, and cost (including without limitation reasonable attorney fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Commline's negligent or wrongful performance of work hereunder, but excepting such loss or damage which is caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Commline shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City (and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers) covered by this indemnity obligation. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California and will survive termination of this Agreement. The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by Commline, and any approval of said insurance by City, are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by Commline pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, to the provisions concerning indemnification. 8. Miscellaneous. 8.1 Amendments. This Agreement may not be amended, modified, altered or supplemented other than by means of a written instrument duly executed and delivered on behalf of Commline and Customer. 8.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement of the Parties, and supersedes all proposal or prior agreements, oral or written, and all other communications between the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. 8.4 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such provision shall be severed from this Agreement and the others shall remain in full force and effect. 8.5 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed, governed and enforced under the laws of the State of California without regard to its choice of law principles. All legal or equitable actions involving claims, disputes or other matters arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach or default, as defined herein, thereof, shall be brought exclusively in the state or federal courts located in Los Angeles, California. The Parties to this Agreement specifically consent to the personal jurisdiction of the above referenced courts.       CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMLINE, INC.       By: ____________________________________ By: ______________________________________  Suja Lowenthal, City Manager Jeff Fukasawa, Vice President 13700 Cimarron Ave., Gardena, CA 90249  Main: (310) 390‐8003 Fax: (310) 390‐4393  www.CommlineInc.com  Commline, Inc. guarantees 1 year of coverage on services following the completion of  installation of configuration of project.  Print Name: ___________________  Signature: _____________________  Date: _________________________  Ryan Narimatsu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‹$&25'&25325$7,21   City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 &\EHU/LDELOLW\(6, /LPLWRI/LDELOLW\ &HUWDLQ8QGHUZULWHUVDW/OR\G V ;  ( /2&$7,216 9(+,&/(6 (;&/86,216$''('%<(1'256(0(17'(6&5,37,212)23(5$7,216  The City of Hermosa Beach, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, boards, agents, and representatives shall be additional insureds with regard to liability and defense of suits or claims arising out of the performance of the Contract. COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 20 33 04 13 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CG 20 33 04 13 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 Page 1 of 2 ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS – AUTOMATIC STATUS WHEN REQUIRED IN CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH YOU This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:980% COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART A. Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an additional insured any person or organization for whom you are performing operations when you and such person or organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that such person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy. Such person or organization is an additional insured only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by: 1.Your acts or omissions; or 2.The acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf; in the performance of your ongoing operations for the additional insured. However, the insurance afforded to such additional insured: 1.Only applies to the extent permitted by law; and 2.Will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured. A person's or organization's status as an additional insured under this endorsement ends when your operations for that additional insured are completed. B.With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following additional exclusions apply: This insurance does not apply to: 1."Bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, any professional architectural, engineering or surveying services, including: a.The preparing, approving, or failing to prepare or approve, maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders or drawings and specifications; or b.Supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities. This exclusion applies even if the claims against any insured allege negligence or other wrongdoing in the supervision, hiring, employment, training or monitoring of others by that insured, if the "occurrence" which caused the "bodily injury" or "property damage", or the offense which caused the "personal and advertising injury", involved the rendering of or the failure to render any professional architectural, engineering or surveying services. Page 2 of 2 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 CG 20 33 04 13 2."Bodily injury" or "property damage" occurring after: a.All work, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work, on the project (other than service, maintenance or repairs) to be performed by or on behalf of the additional insured(s) at the location of the covered operations has been completed; or b.That portion of "your work" out of which the injury or damage arises has been put to its intended use by any person or organization other than another contractor or subcontractor engaged in performing operations for a principal as a part of the same project. C.With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following is added to Section III – Limits Of Insurance: The most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance: 1.Required by the contract or agreement you have entered into with the additional insured; or 2.Available under the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations; whichever is less. This endorsement shall not increase the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations. POLICY NUMBER:980%COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 20 37 04 13 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CG 20 37 04 13 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 Page 1 of 1 ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS – COMPLETED OPERATIONS This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name Of Additional Insured Person(s) Or Organization(s) Location And Description Of Completed Operations As required by written contract executed prior to the date of occurrence but only to the extent permitted by law and the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured. Construction project sites at which you performed work for such additional insured. Information required to complete this Schedule, if not shown above, will be shown in the Declarations. A. Section II – Who Is An Insured is amended to include as an additional insured the person(s) or organization(s) shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury" or "property damage" caused, in whole or in part, by "your work" at the location designated and described in the Schedule of this endorsement performed for that additional insured and included in the "products-completed operations hazard". However: 1.The insurance afforded to such additional insured only applies to the extent permitted by law; and 2.If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured. CG 20 37 04 13 © Insurance Services Office, Inc., 2012 Page 2 of 2  B.With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, the following is added to Section III – Limits Of Insurance: If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the most we will pay on behalf of the additional insured is the amount of insurance: 1.Required by the contract or agreement; or 2.Available under the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations; whichever is less. This endorsement shall not increase the applicable Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CG 24 04 10 93 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1992 Page 1 of 1  WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:980% COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization: To any person or organization provided you entered into the contract with that person or organization prior to any claim or loss to which this insurance applies. (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.) The TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US Condition (Section IV – COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS) is amended by the addition of the following: We waive any right of recovery we may have against the person or organization shown in the Schedule above because of payments we make for injury or damage arising out of your ongoing operations or "your work" done under a contract with that person or organization and included in the "products-completed operations hazard". This waiver applies only to the person or organization shown in the Schedule above. VCAS2035 11 10 Page 1 of 1 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. PRIMARY AND NONCONTRIBUTORY WORDING This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:980% COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PRODUCTS/COMPLETED OPERATIONS LIABILITY COVERAGE With respect to coverage provided to an additional insured via attachment of an Additional Insured endorsement to this policy, such coverage is primary insurance and we will not seek contribution from any other insurance available to that additional insured. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS POLICY REMAIN UNCHANGED VCAS2063 05 11 Page 1 of 5 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. GARAGEKEEPERS LEGAL LIABILITY This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following:980% COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE With respect to coverage provided by this endorsement, the provisions of the Coverage Form apply unless modified by the endorsement. SCHEDULE Location No.Limit of Insurance Each Location Address – State Your Main Business Location as Location Number 1 1 250,000 13700 Cimarron Ave., Gardena, CA 90246 Coverages Limit of Insurance For Each Customer’s Auto – not to exceed the Limits of Insurance shown above at any one location Comprehensive Coverage $ MINUS $________ DEDUCTIBLE FOR EACH “CUSTOMER’S AUTO” EACH LOSS Specified Causes of Loss Coverage $ 250,000 MINUS $_1,000________DEDUCTIBLE EACH “CUSTOMER’S AUTO” EACH LOSS Collision Coverage $ MINUS $_________DEDUCTIBLE FOR EACH “CUSTOMER’S AUTO” EACH LOSS COVERAGE OPTIONS Indicate below with an “X” which, if any, Direct Coverage Option is selected. __ EXCESS INSURANCE If this box is checked, Garagekeepers Coverage remains applicable on a legal liability basis. In addition, coverage applies to “loss” to a “customer’s auto” on an excess basis over any other collectible insurance regardless of whether the other insurance covers your or any other “insured’s” interest or the interest of the “customer’s auto’s” owner. _X_ PRIMARY INSURANCE If this box is checked, Garagekeepers Coverage is changed to apply without regard to your or any other “insured’s” legal liability for “loss” to a “customer’s auto” and is primary insurance. A. This endorsement provides only those coverages: 1. Where a Limit of Insurance and a premium are shown for that coverage in the Schedule; and 2. For the location shown in the Schedule. 8(&*= WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY WC 04 03 06 (Ed. 4-84) WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT – CALIFORNIA We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. (This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us.) You must maintain payroll records accurately segregating the remuneration of your employees while engaged in the work described in the Schedule. The additional premium for this endorsement shall be 2 % of the California workers’ compensation premium other-wise due on such remuneration. Schedule Person or Organization Job Description Any person or organization as required by written contract. The information below is to be completed only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to the policy effectiv e date. (The information below is required only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy.) Endorsement Effective date: 02/01/21 Policy no. TWC3953435 Endorsement no.: Insured: Commline, Inc. Premium: Insurance Company: Technology Insurance Company Countersigned by: ______________________________ WC 04 03 06 (Ed. 4-84) City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 21-0658 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 APPROVAL OF THE ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND REASONABLE ASSURANCE ANALYSIS FOR THE BEACH CITIES WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP (Environmental Programs Manager Douglas Krauss) Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council remove the contingency applied to the June 8,2021 approval of the Revised Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP)and Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) for the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group. Executive Summary: At the June 8,2021 meeting,City Council approved the Revised Enhanced Watershed Management Program and Reasonable Assurance Analysis (Attachment 1)contingent upon a contract amendment,executed by the watershed member agencies,relieving the City of Hermosa Beach from its obligation to pay a special contribution of $160,000.This contribution,detailed in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)dissolving the Greenbelt Infiltration Project,was allocated to fund feasibility studies to inform development of the EWMP Update.Subsequent discussions resulted in an alternate resolution that satisfies the parties involved.Therefore,staff recommends City Council remove the contingency applied to the June 8, 2021approval of the Revised EWMP. Background: The cities of Hermosa Beach,Torrance,Redondo Beach,Manhattan Beach,and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District formed the Beach Cities Group to develop a EWMP to comply with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board's (Regional Board)2012 MS4 Permit.The Beach Cities Group entered into an MOU to cost share the development of the EWMP and a Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Plan (CIMP)in 2013.The Beach Cities EWMP was submitted to the Regional Board and was approved by the Executive Officer of the Regional Board via a letter dated April 18, 2016. At its October 27,2020 meeting,City Council approved a MOU between the Beach Cities Watershed group to update the EWMP,for which the City of Redondo Beach is serving as lead.The MOU included the City’s cost of $107,963.33 towards its share of the EWMP update,as well as the City’s contribution of $160,000 to help fund feasibility studies as committed in a separate MOU dissolving City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0658 contribution of $160,000 to help fund feasibility studies as committed in a separate MOU dissolving the prior MOU between the Beach Cities Group to implement the Greenbelt Infiltration Project. In addition to its many other components,this EWMP update identifies regional stormwater projects to ensure the group meets the pollutant reduction goals outlined in the existing EWMP.The City of Hermosa Beach and its Beach Cities Group partners are actively seeking alternate projects to achieve stormwater diversion and pollution reductions equivalent to what would have been achieved by the cancelled Hermosa Greenbelt Infiltration Project.The search for alternative projects involves reanalyzing existing concepts and researching new projects throughout the area with the goal of combining multiple smaller projects to achieve compliance goals. The EWMP Update was brought to City Council for review and approval at its June 8,2021 meeting, in advance of the June 30,2021 deadline.At its June 8,2021 meeting,Council approved the EWMP update contingent upon the other watershed group agencies agreeing to amend the MOU that dissolved the Greenbelt Infiltration Project.The proposed amendment (Attachment 2)called for relieving the City of Hermosa Beach of its obligation to pay the special contribution of $160,000 because the site analysis and selection process did not comport with the process agreed to in the MOU. Discussion: Shortly after the June 8,2021 City Council meeting,staff reached out to the other watershed member agencies to communicate the Council’s direction and present the proposed MOU amendment.The other agencies rejected the proposed amendment,and instead,a number of meetings were held to discuss the matter.The meetings variously included staff and elected officials from the member agencies to discuss the EWMP update process.Discussions focused on the timing and nature of the work done on feasibility studies to determine the projects identified in the Revised EWMP. On August 5,2021,the City of Redondo Beach sent a Notice of Default to the City of Hermosa Beach requiring payment of the $160,000 within 60 days.Meetings continued between the member agencies to find resolution to this matter.The City of Redondo Beach,acting as lead agency on the EWMP update,and the City of Hermosa Beach came to agreement upon the following deliverables to help resolve the dispute: 1.Hermosa Beach paying the full amount of $267,963.33 (which includes the $160,000 contribution to the study) to Redondo Beach as described in the EWMP Update MOU; 2.Redondo Beach reconciling invoicing for work pertaining to feasibility studies and corresponding contribution of $160,000 by Hermosa Beach before completion of the MOU’s scope of work; 3.Redondo Beach preparing a feasibility study technical memo that describes the evaluation of potential sites to replace the Greenbelt Infiltration Project,including describing how the consultants vetted alternative sites and the factors with which potential sites were ruled out inCity of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0658 consultants vetted alternative sites and the factors with which potential sites were ruled out in favor of the projects identified in the EWMP Update; and 4.Redondo Beach partnering with Hermosa Beach to conduct a second community meeting,as described in the Dissolution of MOU,to discuss the projects identified in the EWMP Update in Hermosa Beach and help answer questions community members may have about those projects, if any. The City of Redondo Beach secured the replacement projects feasibility report and it has been reviewed and approved by the City of Hermosa Beach (Attachment 3).The document has been deemed sufficient to explain the EWMP update process and the feasibility study work performed to satisfy the intent of the MOU dissolving the Greenbelt Infiltration project MOU.Consequently,on September 23,2021,the City of Hermosa Beach paid the full amount owed to Redondo Beach per the EWMP Update MOU.The other two deliverables of invoice reconciliation and public outreach activities will be completed at a later date under careful guidance of City staff. As a result of the resolution,staff recommends City Council remove the contingency of an MOU amendment from its June 8,2021 approval of the Revised EWMP.If approved,staff would subsequently notify the other watershed member agencies and the Regional Water Board of the City’s unconditional approval.Staff would continue to work with the watershed group to implement the Revised EWMP and ensure the timely reconciliation of invoicing and the necessary community outreach. Past Council Actions Meeting Date Description November 12, 2013 Authorized an MOU with the Beach Cities Group to develop an EMWP and CIMP June 23, 2015 Authorized submission of the draft EWMP to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Adopt Los Angeles County Program Environmental Impact Report February 9, 2016 Approved an MOU to develop and implement a CIMP with the Beach Cities WMG July 28, 2020 Approved Dissolution of the MOU for the Greenbelt Infiltration Project and Reappropriated $160,000 from CIP 542 to fund the feasibility studies September 8, 2020 Council sent the draft MOU back to staff to revise October 27, 2020 Council approved MOU for EWMP Update June 8, 2021 Council approved the EWMP contingent upon an amendment to be executed by the other watershed member agencies August 24, 2021 City Council Closed Session discussionCity of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0658 Meeting Date DescriptionNovember 12, 2013 Authorized an MOU with the Beach Cities Group to developan EMWP and CIMPJune 23, 2015 Authorized submission of the draft EWMP to the RegionalWater Quality Control Board and Adopt Los Angeles CountyProgram Environmental Impact ReportFebruary 9, 2016 Approved an MOU to develop and implement a CIMP with theBeach Cities WMGJuly 28, 2020 Approved Dissolution of the MOU for the Greenbelt InfiltrationProject and Reappropriated $160,000 from CIP 542 to fundthe feasibility studies September 8, 2020 Council sent the draft MOU back to staff to revise October 27, 2020 Council approved MOU for EWMP Update June 8, 2021 Council approved the EWMP contingent upon an amendment to be executed by the other watershed member agencies August 24, 2021 City Council Closed Session discussion General Plan Consistency: This report and associated recommendations have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below: Infrastructure Element Goal 5.The stormwater management system is safe,sanitary,and environmentally and fiscally sustainable. Policies: ·5.1 Integration of stormwater best practices.Integrate stormwater infiltration best practices when initiating streetscape redevelopment or public facility improvement projects. ·5.8 Low impact development. Require new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate low impact development (LID) techniques in project designs, including but not limited to on-site drainage improvements using native vegetation to capture and clean stormwater runoff and minimize impervious surfaces. Fiscal Impact: Per the EWMP Update MOU,the City of Hermosa paid its share of $267,963.33,which included $160,000 committed by the City to fund feasibility studies as part of the dissolution of the Greenbelt Infiltration Project MOU.Should the feasibility studies final cost total less than $160,000,the City will be reimbursed by the City of Redondo Beach for the difference.Feasibility study costs are being tracked specifically for this purpose.The cost of the capital projects identified in the plan (proposed dry wells and Hermosa Avenue Green Street)is estimated to be $6.51-8 million.The City of Torrance has received a grant to fund the design and engineering of the Hermosa Avenue Green Street Project and is seeking additional grants for construction.The Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget includes funding of $159,500 for CIP 164 Hermosa Avenue Green Street.City staff from all member agencies continue to seek grant funding opportunities for the proposed projects and will seek future budget appropriations as project cost estimates are further developed. Attachments: 1.Revised Enhanced Watershed Management Plan 2.Proposed Amendment to Dissolution MOU for Implementation of Joint Regional Projects Replacement Projects Feasibility Report Respectfully Submitted by: Douglas Krauss, Environmental Program Manager Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Finance Director Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Beach Cities Watershed Management Group Revised Enhanced Watershed Management Program JUNE 2021 Presented to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Beach Cities Watershed Management Group AGENCY CONTACTS City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Douglas Krauss (310) 750-3603 City of Manhattan Beach 3621 Bell Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Lourdes Vargas (310) 802-5320 Los Angeles County Flood Control District 900 S. Fremont Avenue Alhambra, CA 91803 Yao Kouwonou (626) 458-4329 Document and analysis prepared by Geosyntec Consultants City of Torrance 20500 Madrona Avenue Torrance, CA 90503 John Dettle (310) 618-3059 City of Redondo Beach 415 Diamond Street Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Geraldine Trivedi (310) 318-0661 DRAFT Revised Beach Cities Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) Update 2021 Prepared for The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Prepared by Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (Cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District) DRAFT May 17, 2021 Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction and Background 4 1.1 Revised EWMP Updates 4 1.2 Beach Cities EWMP Area 6 1.3 EWMP Organization 8 2 EWMP Approach 8 2.1 Selection of Appropriate Best Management Practices 9 2.1.1 Minimum Control Measures 10 2.1.2 Non-Stormwater Discharge Measures 10 2.1.3 Additional BMPs 10 2.2 BMP Selection and Prioritization 11 2.3 Legal Authority 11 3 Santa Monica Bay Watershed Management Area 11 3.1 Identification of Water Quality Priorities 11 3.2 RAA Results – Baseline Loads and Target Load Reductions 12 3.3 BMP Summary 15 3.3.1 Redevelopment 15 3.3.2 Analysis Region SMB-5-2 15 3.3.3 Analysis Region SMB-6-1 18 3.4 RAA Results – Load Reductions and Compliance Demonstration 23 3.5 RAA Results - Dry Weather Compliance Demonstration. 27 4 Dominguez Channel Watershed Management Area 27 4.1 Identification of Water Quality Priorities 27 4.2 RAA Results – Baseline Loads and Target Load Reductions 28 4.3 BMP Summary 31 4.3.1 Redevelopment 31 4.3.2 Copper Brake Pad Reduction 31 4.3.3 Analysis Region DC-N-MB & DC-N-RB 31 4.3.4 Analysis Region DC-S 36 4.3.5 Analysis Region DC-TL 37 4.4 RAA Results – Load Reductions and Compliance Demonstration 37 4.5 RAA Results – Dry Weather Compliance Demonstration 42 5 Cost Estimate 42 5.1 BMP Cost Methodology and Assumptions 43 5.1.1 Hard Cost Assumptions 43 Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 3 5.1.2 Soft Cost Assumptions 43 5.1.3 Operations and Maintenance 44 5.1.4 Additional Design Assumptions 45 5.2 Summary of Cost Estimates 45 6 Assessment and Adaptive Management Framework 46 7 Compliance Schedule 48 7.1 Santa Monica Bay WMA 48 7.2 Dominguez Channel WMA 49 8 References 50 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS A. History and Regulatory Background B. Water Quality Prioritization and Source Assessment C. Minimum Control Measure Customization and Summary D. RAA Report E. Project Concept Fact Sheets F. Background Information on the LACFCD G. Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy H. Community Involvement for EWMP Implementation Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 4 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Following adoption of the 2012 Los Angeles Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (Permit),1 the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Torrance, together with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), collectively referred to as the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (Beach Cities WMG) agreed to collaborate on the development of an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) for the Santa Monica Bay (SMB) and Dominguez Channel areas within their jurisdictions (referred to herein as the Beach Cities EWMP Area). On June 26, 2015, in accordance with the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG submitted a draft EWMP to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB). Following public review and comment, as well as multiple reviews by LARWQCB, the Beach Cities WMG submitted a second revised EWMP on February 9, 2016. On April 18, 2016 the Beach Cities’ second revised EWMP was approved by LARWQCB. Based on the Permit-specified adaptive management process, as well as other relevant changes within the Beach Cities Area, multiple updates to the Beach Cities EWMP have occurred since its original approval in April 2016: one in March 2018, and a second in August 2019. In addition to regularly adapting the EWMP, Permittees are required to submit an updated EWMP with an updated Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) by June 30, 2021 for review and approval by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer. The updated RAA is required to incorporate both water quality data and control measure performance data, and any other information informing the adaptive management process, gathered through December 31, 2020. The latest version of the Beach Cities EWMP (June 2021) has been drafted to meet these requirements, along with applicable requirements of State Order WQ 2020-0038, issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) on November 17, 2020 (SWRCB, 2020). Additional information related to the history of the Beach Cities EWMP development and the regulatory background upon which it is built can be found in Appendix A. 1.1 Revised EWMP Updates This revised Beach Cities EWMP has been developed to build upon and improve the original Beach Cities EWMP. Since the Beach Cities EWMP was first approved in 2016, significant advancements have been made in the state-of-the-practice of stormwater project planning and RAA modeling. Additionally, the Group has gained invaluable experience and insight with respect to implementation of the EWMP, 1 Order No. R4-2012-0175 NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, except those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 5 understanding more about both the opportunities and challenges they face in successfully implementing effective stormwater projects. In particular, the revised Beach Cities EWMP has been updated in the following critical ways: • Incorporation of newly available, EWMP-specific data. The Beach Cities WMG has been successfully implementing their Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) since 2015, resulting in five years of outfall and receiving water monitoring data from the EWMP Area. Coupled with the long-term Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria (SMBBB) Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring data that has been collected consistently since 2005, the Beach Cities WMG has updated their EWMP to incorporate applicable data. Water quality priorities have been re-evaluated (see Appendix B) based on updated receiving water compliance assessments, as well as paired outfall data that allows for a more-definitive determination of whether MS4 outfalls are causing or contributing to receiving water exceedances. • Utilization of the recently updated, County-wide RAA modeling tool. While the original RAA leveraged the strengths of the Structural BMP Prioritization and Analysis Tool (SBPAT) to perform the wet weather modeling analysis, the revised RAA uses the newly released WMMS 2 modeling platform to maintain consistency with the majority of RAAs across Los Angeles County. Developed by LACFCD and publicly released in May 2020, WMMS 2 utilizes remote sensing, water quality, and hydrology data collected through 2018 to simulate contaminant loading, runoff volume, and flow rate. WMMS 2 contains two major components: a Loading Simulation Program in C++ (LSPC) to determine hydrology and pollutant loading; and a System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis Integration (SUSTAIN) to assist in BMP selection and performance. An advantage of using the WMMS 2 model is the extensive regional calibration effort that has gone into this recent update of the model. Further details of the RAA modeling can be found in Appendix D. • Thorough calibration of the RAA model. Although WMMS 2 has been calibrated on a regional basis, the default WMMS 2 model was further calibrated and validated using Beach Cities CIMP monitoring data collected through June 30, 2020 to best reflect the baseline hydrology and water quality conditions within the Beach Cities EWMP Area. Further details of the RAA calibration process can be found in Appendix D. • A focus on new multi-benefit regional projects. Although distributed BMPs are necessary and beneficial for watershed planning, regional projects are generally more preferable, as they provide multiple benefits, are more cost-effective, and have a higher likelihood of receiving outside funding. Removing projects and programs that were no longer feasible, the Beach Cities WMG is committed to adding new regional, multi-benefit projects, including regional green streets, that seek to enhance water quality, maximize community benefits, and amplify other environmental objectives. Incorporating these changes, the revised Beach Cities EWMP more accurately reflects the actual water quality and flow conditions in the EWMP Area; provides updated, measurable milestones that can be tracked over time; and identifies implementable, cost-effective solutions to achieve compliance. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 6 1.2 Beach Cities EWMP Area This EWMP is applicable to the Beach Cities Watershed Management Area (WMA), which consists of all of the incorporated MS4 areas of the cities of Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach and Torrance (excluding the Machado Lake Watershed) and includes the infrastructure of the LACFCD within those jurisdictions (Figure 1).2 This area includes portions of two distinct HUC-12 watersheds,3 Santa Monica Bay Watershed and Dominguez Channel Watershed, as summarized in Table 1. The Machado Lake Watershed, which is addressed by the separate Machado Lake Watershed EWMP developed by City of Torrance, is not part of the Beach Cities WMA or Beach Cities EWMP. As shown in Figure 1, the Beach Cities WMA is divided into two geographic areas, the Santa Monica Bay (SMB) Watershed and Dominguez Channel (DC) Watershed. The western portion of the Beach Cities WMA consists of approximately 7,800 acres of land that drains to SMB (Table 1). This accounts for 53% of the total Beach Cities WMA, and includes portions of the cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, and the entirety of the City of Hermosa Beach. This portion of the study area hereinafter is referred to as the SMB WMA.4 The eastern portion of the Beach Cities WMA is tributary to Dominguez Channel5 (including Torrance Carson Channel 6 ) and is comprised of approximately 7,024 acres of land (Table 1). This watershed accounts for 47% of the total Beach Cities WMA, and includes portions of the Cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. Storm drains from the Cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach drain through the City of Lawndale before discharging to Dominguez Channel. The City of Torrance’s MS4 discharges directly to Dominguez Channel and Torrance Carson Channel (Torrance Lateral). Collectively, this portion of the study area is hereinafter referred to as the Dominguez Channel WMA. 2 The LACFCD is not responsible for land within the Beach Cities EWMP Area but does own and maintain infrastructure within all three watersheds. Background information on the LACFCD is provided in Appendix F. 3 A HUC-12 watershed is defined by a 12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) delineation, which identifies the watershed area based on six levels of classification: regional, sub-region, hydrologic basin, hydrologic sub-basin, watershed, and subwatershed. 4 The Wylie Basin is a retention basin within the SMB WMA with no outlet that is sized to handle events significantly larger than the 85th percentile, 24-hr storm event. Therefore, its drainage area has been excluded from the EWMP RAA. 5 Other portions of the Dominguez Channel Watershed, including Los Angeles County Unincorporated areas, are addressed by separate EWMP groups. 6 Also known as the Torrance Lateral. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 7 Figure 1. Beach Cities EWMP Area Overview Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 8 Table 1. Beach Cities Watershed Management Area Summary Participating Agency Area (acres) Santa Monica Bay WMA Dominguez Channel WMA Total Beach Cities WMA City of Redondo Beach 2,592 1,252 3,844 City of Manhattan Beach 2,089 363 2,452 City of Hermosa Beach 846 - 846 City of Torrance 2,274 5,409 7,683 Total 7,801 7,024 14,825 1.3 EWMP Organization This Beach Cities EWMP addresses the Permit-required watershed management program elements for both the SMB and Dominguez Channel WMAs. Because the SMB and Dominguez Channel WMAs have their own unique water quality conditions, their technical evaluations were performed independently and are documented in separate sections in this EWMP. This includes the water quality prioritization, RAA, and BMP identification. Section 2 provides general information on the EWMP approach that is applicable to both WMAs. Section 3 summarizes the technical aspects of the EWMP specific to Santa Monica Bay WMA while Section 4 covers the same technical elements for Dominguez Channel WMA. Section 5 provides the cost opinions associated with EWMP project implementation. In Section 6, an overview of the adaptive management framework the WMG utilizes to actively manage their EWMP is provided. Building on all of this, Section 7 provides a compliance schedule for the Beach Cities WMG. Lastly, Section 8 includes the references cited in the EWMP. A large quantity of information in the revised Beach Cities EWMP has been moved to the appendices. This includes a significant amount of detailed background information, such as regulatory framework, water quality prioritization, minimum control measure customization, RAA details, financial strategy, and more. The goal of this approach is to simplify and streamline the information presented within the main body of the EWMP, while still providing the technical details and thoroughness required by such a significant regulatory plan. The hope is that all users, including the permittees, regulators, residents, non- governmental organizations, and other stakeholders will find the revised Beach Cities EWMP to be more user-friendly. 2 EWMP APPROACH The EWMP is a planning document intended to lay out a framework of activities that will comply with water quality requirements. Therefore, it is necessary to demonstrate that selected BMPs are reasonably expected to meet defined goals and objectives. This demonstration of performance is described through a technically robust and rigorous RAA. Through this analysis, the Beach Cities WMG identified and evaluated BMP implementation scenarios within the Beach Cities EWMP Area for each Waterbody Pollutant Combination (WBPC) identified. The EWMP approach, including model selection, data inputs, critical condition selection, calibration performance criteria, and output types is consistent with the LARWQCB Reasonable Assurance Analysis Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 9 Guidance Document (LARWQCB, 2014) and also leverages previous efforts where relevant models have already been developed. The individual water quality targets, BMPs, RAAs, schedules, and costs for each of the watersheds are summarized in watershed-specific sections that follow. Details of the RAA, including model selection, calibration, and execution can be found in Appendix D. 2.1 Selection of Appropriate Best Management Practices The Permit requires the Beach Cities WMG to identify strategies, control measures, and BMPs to implement within their EWMP Area. Specifically, the Permit specifies that BMPs are expected to be implemented so that MS4 discharges meet effluent limits as established in the Permit and to reduce impacts to receiving waters from stormwater and non-stormwater runoff. This expectation assumes the implementation of both types of BMPs – non-structural and structural – by the Beach Cities WMG. The objectives of selecting and incorporating BMPs into the Beach Cities EWMP include: 1. Preventing and/or eliminating non-stormwater discharges to the MS4 that are a source of pollutants from the MS4 to receiving waters; 2. Achieving all applicable interim and final WQBELs and/or RWLs pursuant to corresponding compliance schedules; and 3. Ensuring that discharges form the MS4 do not cause or contribute to exceedances of RWLs. The Permit defines BMPs as “practices or physical devices or systems designed to prevent or reduce pollutant loading from stormwater or non-stormwater discharges to receiving waters.” Structural BMPs involve the construction of a physical control measure to alter the hydrology or water quality of incoming stormwater or non-stormwater. There are two categories of structural BMPs, defined by the runoff area treated by the BMP: regional BMPs 7 and distributed BMPs. Regional BMPs are designed to treat runoff from a large drainage area expected to include multiple parcels and various land uses. These may include infiltration basins, treatment plants, and subsurface flow wetlands, among others. Distributed BMPs are designed to treat runoff from smaller drainage areas and are normally installed to collect runoff close to the source from a limited number of parcels. Distributed BMPs typically include drywells, swales, bioretention facilities, biofiltration facilities, and cisterns, among others. Non-structural BMPs prevent or reduce the release of pollutants or transport of pollutants within the MS4 drainage area but do not involve construction of physical facilities. Non-structural BMPs are often implemented as programs or strategies which seek to reduce runoff and/or pollution close to the source. Examples include but are not limited to: street sweeping, downspout disconnect programs, pet waste cleanup stations, irrigation ordinances, or illicit discharge elimination. Minimum control measures 7 The term “regional BMP” does not necessarily indicate that the project can capture and retain the 85th percentile storm, as described in the Permit. The term “regional EWMP project” is therefore used for those regional BMPs that are expected to be able to capture and retain the 85th percentile storm. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 10 (MCMs) as set forth in the Permit are a subset of non-structural BMPs even though some MCMs include measures that require the implementation of structural BMPs by both public and private parties. In accordance with the Permit, the following types of BMPs were considered in the development of the Beach Cities EWMP. 2.1.1 Minimum Control Measures The Beach Cities WMG has assessed the MCMs defined in the Permit to identify opportunities for focusing resources on the high priority issues in each watershed. The Permit requires the permittees to implement prescribed MCMs in each of six categories/programs: Public Information & Participation Program (PIPP), Industrial/Commercial Facilities, Planning & Land Development, Development Construction, Public Agency Activities, and Illicit Connection & Illicit Discharges Elimination. These measures include procedures such as outreach programs, inspections, and reporting requirements designed to reduce runoff-related pollution within each permittees’ MS4 area. MCMs in each of these categories have been effectively implemented by the Beach Cities WMG for years. In some cases, MCM program enhancements have been implemented to address watershed priorities for TMDL implementation. Details on the selected MCMs, including proposed modifications to any programs, are provided in Appendix C. 2.1.2 Non-Stormwater Discharge Measures The Permit requires Permittees to identify non-stormwater discharges that cause or contribute to exceedances of RWLs, and to then identify and implement BMPs to effectively eliminate the source of pollutants. These BMPs may include measures to prohibit non-stormwater discharge to the MS4, additional structural BMPs to reduce pollutants in the non-stormwater discharge, diversion to a sanitary sewer for treatment, or strategies to require the non-stormwater discharge to be separately regulated under a general NPDES permit. In the SMB Watershed, eight low flow diversions have been implemented successfully along the coast to effectively divert significant non-stormwater discharges and prevent them from reaching the ocean. Additionally, due in part to setbacks for smaller outfalls, non-stormwater discharges to the ocean are known to be non-existent. The effectiveness of these measures is consistently confirmed by observations made during weekly and daily shoreline monitoring. Since initiation of the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG has attempted to eliminate non-exempt dry weather MS4 discharges using a suite of structural BMPs and non-structural source controls (e.g., water conservation incentives, enhanced IDDE efforts, enhanced education/outreach, and inspection/ enforcement to prevent sources of non-stormwater flow). To-date, monitoring has shown that the WMG has been successful at this endeavor, and although dry weather flows do still exist in some outfalls draining to Dominguez Channel, particularly within Torrance Carson Channel, the Group has successfully demonstrated that these discharges are considered conditionally exempt. 2.1.3 Additional BMPs In addition to the MCMs and non-stormwater discharge measures, the Beach Cities WMG considered numerous additional BMPs to achieve compliance with Permit-specified WQBELs and/or RWLs. Some Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 11 of these BMPs have already been implemented, while others have been identified as part of the revised EWMP process. 2.2 BMP Selection and Prioritization In order to demonstrate reasonable assurance of achieving water quality priorities, BMP opportunities were identified and evaluated in a prioritized manner. Prioritization was based on BMP effectiveness for the pollutants of concern (BMPs that had greater treatment efficiency for the pollutant of concern in a particular analysis region were prioritized over other BMPs); implementation feasibility as determined by the Beach Cities WMG; and cost (low cost BMPs were prioritized first). The RAA process was then carried out in an iterative manner to demonstrate that implementation of the selected BMPs will result in the attainment of applicable Permit-specified WQBELs, and will also prevent discharges from causing or contributing to exceedances of applicable RWLs. Details on how each BMP was accounted for in the RAA can be found in Appendix D. A summary of existing and proposed BMPs within each watershed can be found in the respective watershed section of the EWMP. 2.3 Legal Authority The Beach Cities WMG Permittees have the necessary legal authority to implement the BMPs identified in the EWMP. Table 2 includes the water quality ordinance for each agency with a reference link. Table 2. Beach Cities Water Quality Ordinances City Water Quality Ordinance Hermosa Beach Chapter 8.44 - Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Regulations Manhattan Beach Chapter 5.84 – Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Redondo Beach Title 5 Chapter 7 - Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Torrance Division 4 Chapter 10 – Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control LACFCD Flood Control District Code, Chapter 21 - Stormwater and Runoff Pollution Control 3 SANTA MONICA BAY WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA 3.1 Identification of Water Quality Priorities As part of the EWMP process, the Permit requires the Beach Cities WMG to identify water quality priorities within their WMA. The list of water body pollutant combinations (WBPCs) defined in the original Beach Cities EWMP has been revised based on the most recent updates to applicable TMDLs and 303(d) listings, as well as CIMP monitoring data collected through June 2020. The updated WBPC list for SMB is summarized in Table 3. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 12 Table 3. Water Body Pollutant Combinations – Santa Monica Bay Category Water Body Pollutant – Applicable Condition Reason for Categorization 1: Highest Priority Santa Monica Bay (including SMB Beaches) Bacteria – Wet and Dry Weather SMB Beaches Bacteria TMDL (LARWQCB, 2012b) Trash/Debris – Wet and Dry Weather SMB Debris TMDL (LARWQCB, 2010) DDTs – Wet and Dry Weather SMB PCBs and DDT TMDL (USEPA, 2012) PCBs – Wet and Dry Weather 2: High Priority Mercury– Wet and Dry Weather 2014-2016 303(d) list Arsenic– Wet and Dry Weather Details related to the identification, prioritization, and potential sources of each of the SMB WBPCs can be found in Appendix B. Unless otherwise noted, all WBPCs identified in Table 2 have been addressed as part of the revised RAA. 3.2 RAA Results – Baseline Loads and Target Load Reductions Consistent with the original Beach Cities EWMP RAA, baseline and target load reduction analyses were performed for each analysis region in the Santa Monica Bay WMA. Figure 2 illustrates these analysis regions. Appendix D provides details on how the analysis regions were determined. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 13 Figure 2. Santa Monica Bay Analysis Region Overview The process for establishing pollutant target load reductions (TLRs) necessary to meet water quality objectives for the SMB WBPCs is detailed in Appendix D. Based on monitoring data collected throughout the SMB WMA as part of the Beach Cities CIMP efforts, fecal indicator bacteria (i.e., fecal coliform) is the only WBPC for which a TLR was estimated; all other WBPCs have TLRs of zero. Appendix A provides more information on the selection and modeling of WBPCs. A summary of estimated baseline loads and TLRs for fecal coliform in each analysis region in the SMB WMA is provided in Table 4. For non-zero TLRs, an equivalent 24-hour runoff management volume was estimated as the maximum daily diverted volume needed to achieve the TLR during the critical condition (i.e., throughout the modeled year). Both load-based TLR and the equivalent 24-hour runoff management volume are considered eligible Beach Cities EWMP compliance metrics. Appendix D provides detailed information on the process to calculate TLRs and 24-hour management volumes. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 14 Table 4. Wet Weather Fecal Coliform TLRs for Santa Monica Bay WMA Analysis Region Critical Condition Baseline Load (1012 MPN/ year) Final Target Load Reduction Absolute TLR (1012 MPN/ year) % of Baseline Load TLR Equivalent 24-Hour Management Volume (ac-ft) SMB-5-01 90th percentile water year 1.7 Anti-Degradation 0% 0 SMB-5-02 111.9 59.0 53% 67.1 SMB-5-03 7.5 Anti-Degradation 0% 0 SMB-5-04 2.6 Anti-Degradation 0% 0 SMB-5-05 39.0 Anti-Degradation 0% 0 SMB-6-01 112.1 54.7 49% 51.2 SMB-6-02 16.2 Anti-Degradation 0% 0 SMB-6-03 10.0 CIMP data shows compliance with final allowable exceedance days. No RAA required to demonstrate compliance. SMB-6-04 4.1 SMB-6-05 15.3 Anti-Degradation 0% 0 SMB-6-06 1.2 Anti-Degradation 0% 0 For analysis regions with SMBBB TMDL compliance monitoring locations (CMLs) that have anti- degradation-based allowable exceedance days for wet weather, a target load reduction of zero was assumed, consistent with the TMDL’s approach that acknowledges that historic bacteria exceedance rates for each of these analysis regions are lower than that of the reference beach, on average. This assumption applies for seven of the 11 total SMBBB TMDL CMLs in Beach Cities SMB WMA – i.e., SMB-5-1, SMB-5-3, SMB-5-4, SMB-5-5, SMB-6-2, SMB-6-5, and SMB-6-6. Historic wet weather monitoring data at these sampling locations through TMDL Year 2019 confirm this understanding, as the long-term exceedance rate at all seven sites varies between 7 and 24%, below the long-term wet weather exceedance rate at the reference beach (26%). Consistent with the original Beach Cities EWMP, a zero percent TLR was calculated in the analysis region draining to SMB-6-3. Based on all SMBBB monitoring data collected at this CML through TMDL Year 2019,8 the wet weather exceedance rate (21%) remained lower than the average wet weather exceedance rate at the reference watershed (26%). Additionally, over the past ten years, this site only had one year (TMDL Year 2017) that exhibited more measured wet weather exceedance days (4) than the allowable exceedance days (3). This year had more rainfall and wet days than TMDL Year 2011, which is the 90th percentile year. Similarly, a zero percent TLR was also calculated in the analysis region draining to CML SMB-6-4. Based on all SMBBB monitoring data collected at this CML through TMDL Year 2019, the wet weather exceedance rate (20%) remained lower than the average wet weather exceedance rate at the reference watershed (26%). Additionally, over the past ten years, this site only had one year (TMDL Year 2011) 8 TMDL Year 2019 is defined as November 1, 2018 through October 31, 2019. As of the drafting of the revised EWMP, this was the latest TMDL Year for which a complete data set was available. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 15 that exhibited more measured wet weather exceedance days (5) than the allowable exceedance days (3). This year was the 90th percentile year. Further, SMB-6-4 is an open beach CML with no major MS4 outfall at the sampling location. 3.3 BMP Summary As discussed in Section 2 and Appendix D, BMPs were identified and accounted for in the RAA to demonstrate attainment of applicable water quality targets. Because the RAA was calibrated using local water quality and flow data through June 2020, only BMPs implemented or planned to be implemented after this date were modeled in the RAA. A summary of these BMPs, including modeled programmatic (i.e., redevelopment) and structural measures, are provided herein. 3.3.1 Redevelopment The original Beach Cities EWMP assumed land-use specific redevelopment rates based on both literature and local records. Since this time, the Beach Cities WMG has completed five years of implementation and has quantified redevelopment projects triggering low impact development (LID) requirements each year in the annual watershed report. Over the course of this five-year period, the WMG observed a total annual redevelopment rate of 0.08% for applicable land uses (residential, commercial, industrial, education, and transportation). Of the implemented LID projects, 95.6% implemented bioretention, infiltration, or otherwise full capture of the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm, in accordance with local LID ordinances. The remaining 4.4% of projects used flow-through treatment BMPs to treat a volume equivalent to 1.5 times the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm. LID was assumed to be implemented at a rate of 0.08% for all applicable land uses, assuming implementation from July 2020 until the end of the compliance schedule. All LID BMPs constructed through June 2020 were assumed to be accounted for in the model via the calibration process. An example of a LID redevelopment project in the SMB WMA is the Beach Cities Health District redevelopment project. The redevelopment project will include sufficient stormwater retention BMPs to fully capture and retain the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm from a total of 10.5 acres of on-site drainage. Projects such as these will further increase the stormwater runoff managed within the SMB WMA. 3.3.2 Analysis Region SMB-5-2 Analysis Region SMB-5-2, which discharges at 28th Street in Manhattan Beach, is one of two priority watersheds for the Beach Cities in the SMB WMA. In addition to existing projects and LID implementation, a single, large-scale regional project near the watershed outfall has been identified for implementation, along with a green street project that is currently in design. 3.3.2.1 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project The City of Manhattan Beach is implementing the 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project to capture stormwater flows within the 28th Street storm drain system. The project will capture and infiltrate runoff from approximately 1,520 acres and includes two phases. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 16 • Phase 1 project concept includes 48 infiltration drywells at the 26th Street Parking Facility, which is opportunely located downstream in the 28th Street storm drain system, 200 feet from the beach and outfall. A diversion structure installed in the 28th Street storm drain will direct flows through a pretreatment unit and into drywells for infiltration under the parking facility. Additional improvements at the parking facility will include permeable pavement and trees for surface greening. • Phase 2 project concept includes an infiltration trench along the beach at 28th Street and will only be constructed if additional pollutant load reduction is needed following performance evaluation of Phase 1. According to RAA modeling, the project is estimated to provide 81.9 acre-feet of 24-hour management volume capacity during the critical condition (90th percentile wet year). The project is currently in the design stage and has submitted a Safe Clean Water Regional Infrastructure application for design and construction funding (Manhattan Beach, 2020). An overview plan of the project is provided in Figure 3, and a concept factsheet of the project is provided in Appendix E. Figure 3. Project Overview – 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project 3.3.2.2 Beach Cities Green Streets 1 (Manhattan Beach 19th Street) Following project identification in the original Beach Cities EWMP, the WMG initiated design of green infrastructure elements in a targeted neighborhood in the SMB-5-2 watershed. Green street elements will be installed along 19th Street between Sepulveda Boulevard and Pine Avenue in the City of Manhattan Beach to address a 31-acre tributary area consisting of single-family residential and commercial land uses. The project is currently in design with the design objective of achieving full capture of the 85th percentile, Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 17 24-hr design storm from the tributary area. A map showing the project drainage area is provided in Figure 4. Figure 4. Project Overview – Beach Cities Green Streets Project in SMB-5-2 Since the project is designed to fully capture the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm from the tributary area, the entire tributary area has been removed from the RAA model. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 18 3.3.3 Analysis Region SMB-6-1 Analysis Region SMB-6-1, which discharges to the beach via a storm drain that runs along Herondo Avenue on the border of Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach, is the second of two priority watersheds for the Beach Cities in the SMB Watershed. In addition to LID implementation, a selection of green street projects are currently in design; Torrance is enhancing and expanding three existing stormwater detention basins to fully capture the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event from their combined tributary area; and three additional projects have been identified for implementation. 3.3.3.1 Beach Cities Green Streets Project Following project identification in the original Beach Cities EWMP, the WMG has initiated design of distributed green infrastructure elements in six distinct areas of the SMB-6-1 watershed. In total, the Beach Cities Joint Green Streets Project will capture, treat, and/or infiltrate runoff from approximately 167 acres, including tributary areas from all four Beach Cities member cities. The project is intended to be a multi-benefit project that will address multiple WBPCs, including trash, bacteria, and more. It will also include neighborhood greening elements, where feasible. Locations and approximate drainage areas of the Green Streets project sites in the SMB-6-1 analysis region are shown in Figure 5, with brief descriptions of each provided below: • Beach Cities Green Streets 2 (Manhattan Beach Artesia Blvd): The proposed green street project will be located along the northern side of Artesia Blvd between S. Herrin Street and S. Redondo Avenue. The project area consists of high-density residential land use totaling 7 acres. • Beach Cities Green Streets 3 (Redondo Beach Anita Street): The proposed green street project will be constructed in residential areas along Anita Street, between Flagler Lane and N. Lucia Avenue and compose approximately 16 acres of drainage area. • Beach Cities Green Streets 4 (Redondo Beach Ford Avenue): The project will be constructed in high-density residential and commercial areas along Belmont Lane, Pullman Lane, Ford Avenue, Goodman Avenue, and Steinhart Avenue, composing approximately 31 acres of total tributary area. • Beach Cities Green Streets 5 (Torrance 191st Street): Green street elements will be implemented along 191st Street between Inglewood Avenue and Firmona Avenue, covering a drainage area of 15 acres of commercial corridor. • Beach Cities Green Streets 6 (Torrance Northwest): Green street elements will be implemented along Kingsdale, Mansel, Grevilea, and Burin Avenues between 182nd Street and 186th Street, covering a drainage area of 51 acres of residential and commercial land uses. • Beach Cities Green Streets 7 (Hermosa Beach): The project area consists of medium to high density residential and commercial development, covering a total drainage area of 47.6 acres. Improvements are proposed along Hermosa Avenue between 4th Street and Herondo Street, as well as throughout the tributary watershed. The Beach Cities Green Street Project is currently in design with the design objective of achieving full capture of the 85th percentile, 24-hr design storm from each of the tributary areas. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 19 Since the project is designed to fully capture the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm from each tributary area, the respective tributary areas have been removed from the RAA model. Additional project design information can be found in the Project Concept Report (Torrance, 2019) Figure 5. Project Overview – Beach Cities Green Streets Project in SMB-6-1 3.3.3.2 Torrance Basins Enhancement & Expansion Project Following initial enhancements to the Amie, Henrietta, and Entradero Flood Control Basin network completed in 2015, the City of Torrance is moving forward with further improvements to expand the capacity of these basins to fully retain the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm from their combined Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 20 1,407-acre tributary area, comprising approximately one half of the tributary area to the Herondo Storm Drain system. The scope of this basin expansion project includes: • Deepening of the existing Henrietta and Entradero Basins to increase storage capacity; • Installation of drywells at Henrietta Basin to improve infiltration; and • Adjustment of pumping levels at Amie Basin to ensure retention of the 85th percentile design storm. The project, which includes additional benefits such as walking trails and educational material, was recently submitted for funding under the Safe Clean Water Program. Preliminary design of the project is currently in process (City of Torrance, 2020a). A concept factsheet of the project is provided in Appendix E. Since the project is designed to fully capture the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm from the tributary area, the entire tributary area has been removed from the RAA model. 3.3.3.3 Hermosa Beach 8th Street Green Infrastructure Project In 2020, Hermosa Beach completed a street improvement project along 8th Street, stretching from Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive. The street improvement project incorporated distributed Filterra® biofiltration units that receive and treat surface runoff from 8.1-acres of area draining to the improved street segment. The project treats runoff in both the SMB 5-5 and SMB 6-1 subwatersheds, but was only quantified for the portion of the project that is tributary to analysis region SMB-6-1 (a total of 8.2 acres). 3.3.3.4 Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project Fulton Playfield is an open green space in the City of Redondo Beach at the southeast intersection of Ripley Avenue and Rindge Lane, located in the upper portion of the SMB-6-1 watershed. The playfield, which is owned and operated by the City of Redondo Beach, is adjacent to an 8.5-foot by 10-foot LACFCD storm drain (BI 6502 Line A) that runs under Ripley Avenue and connects directly to the Herondo Storm Drain on 190th St. An underground flood control retention basin underlies the western half of the playfield and provides approximately 6.4 acre-feet of passive storage to help relieve flooding during storm events. Approximately 432 acres of the City of Redondo Beach and 25 acres of the City of Manhattan Beach are tributary to the basin. The Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project proposes to add infiltration elements to the existing flood control basin in order to transform it into a multi-benefit regional project while maintaining its flood control capacity and function. Infiltration will be accomplished via the addition of drywells to the eastern portion of the playfield. The project will include a control system for the inlet-outlet structure of the basin to manage and optimize the storage and infiltration capacity of the project. The total 24-hour management volume provided by these distributed BMPs will be 26 acre-feet. The City of Redondo Beach will coordinate with LACFCD to advance the design of this project as expeditiously as possible. The Project will also incorporate a variety of other benefits. Parkway greening via the installation of rain gardens is proposed along the east side of Ripley Avenue to capture and treat street flows that aren’t Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 21 currently tributary to the Project. Park enhancements at the playfield, such as playground equipment or outdoor exercise equipment, are being considered. Additionally, as Valor Christian Academy is directly upstream of the Project, cooperation with the school will be prioritized. The City of Redondo Beach is currently preparing a Feasibility Study for the project to apply for Safe Clean Water regional project funding. An overview of the project is illustrated in Figure 6. A concept plan of the project as envisioned is provided in Appendix E. Figure 6. Project Overview – Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project 3.3.3.5 Redondo Beach Herondo Distributed Infiltration Project The City of Redondo Beach is planning to implement a series of distributed infiltration BMPs (e.g., drywells, porous gutters, porous crosswalks, porous parking lanes, bioswales, etc.) within the Herondo Storm Drain watershed. The total 24-hour management volume provided by these distributed BMPs will be at least 17.6 acre-feet. An overview of the project is illustrated in Figure 7. A concept plan showing a potential distribution of drywells to achieve the required management volume is provided in Appendix E. Exact type and location of each BMP is subject to change. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 22 Figure 7. Project Overview – Redondo Beach Herondo Distributed Infiltration Project 3.3.3.6 Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells The City of Hermosa Beach is planning to implement a series of drywells within the SMB-6-1 watershed. Based on initial screening, drywells are proposed east of Pacific Coast Highway, between 1st Street and 10th Street.9 The total 24-hour management volume to be provided by these BMPs is estimated to be 7.7 acre-feet. Project overview is illustrated in Figure 8. A concept plan showing a potential distribution of drywells to achieve the required management volume is provided in Appendix E. Exact type and location of each BMP is subject to change. 9 A drywell is a bored, drilled, or driven shaft or hole whose depth is greater than its width. A drywell may either be a small excavated pit filled with aggregate or prefabricated storage chamber or pipe segment. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 23 Figure 8. Project Overview – Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells 3.4 RAA Results – Load Reductions and Compliance Demonstration Load reduction calculations for the Beach Cities SMB WMA are summarized in Table 5. Through the RAA, the collective load reductions achieved by all existing and proposed BMPs achieved applicable TLRs and TLR-equivalent 24-hour management volumes within each analysis region. As a result, reasonable assurance is demonstrated for the Santa Monica Bay WMA. The 24-hour management volume of each project is shown in Figure 9 both by project category and agency. To spatially represent the RAA output, the 24-hour management volume is illustrated in Figure 10. As shown in the figure, analysis regions with a zero calculated TLR (e.g., anti-degradation areas) were assigned a 0 acre-feet 24-hour stormwater management volume. The 24-hour management volume of a regional project was spatially represented by its drainage area. Drainage areas to 85th percentile, 24-hour design capture projects are shown as hatched polygons, indicating these areas demonstrate compliance through the alternative compliance path of full 85th percentile, 24-hour design stormwater capture. Details on BMP load quantification and 24-hour management volume calculation for the Santa Monica Bay WMA are provided in Appendix D. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 24 Table 5. Beach Cities Santa Monica Bay WMA RAA Summary Analysis Region Fecal Coliform Target Load Reduction (TLR) BMP Load Reduction (LR) Summary 10^12 MPN/yr % of Baseline Load TLR Equivalent 24-Hour Management Volume (ac-ft) LID Redevelopment Regional Project Distributed Project Total Load Reduction RAA Achieved? % of Baseline Load 24-Hour Volume (ac-ft) % of Baseline Load 24-Hour Volume (ac-ft) % of Baseline Load 24-Hour Volume (ac-ft) % of Baseline Load 24-Hour Volume (ac-ft) SMB-5-01 Anti- Degradation 0% 0 TLR = 0% for Anti-degradation site. No RAA needed n/a SMB-5-02 60.5 53% 67.1 0.3% 0.4 64% 81.9 0% 0 64.3% 82.3 Yes SMB-5-03 Anti- Degradation 0% 0 TLR = 0% for Anti-degradation site. No RAA needed n/a SMB-5-04 Anti- Degradation 0% 0 TLR = 0% for Anti-degradation site. No RAA needed n/a SMB-5-05 Anti- Degradation 0% 0 TLR = 0% for Anti-degradation site. No RAA needed n/a SMB-6-01 54.7 49% 51.2 0.3% 0.3 24.8% 25.9 24.1% 25.2 49.1% 51.4 Yes SMB-6-02 Anti- Degradation 0% 0 TLR = 0% for Anti-degradation site. No RAA needed n/a SMB-6-03 0.0 0% 0 TLR = 0% based on historical monitoring data. No RAA needed n/a SMB-6-04 0.0 0% 0 TLR = 0% based on historical monitoring data. No RAA needed n/a SMB-6-05 Anti- Degradation 0% 0 TLR = 0% for Anti-degradation site. No RAA needed n/a SMB-6-06 Anti- Degradation 0% 0 TLR = 0% for Anti-degradation site. No RAA needed n/a Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 25 Figure 9 . Project-Specific 24-Hour Management Volume in Santa Monica Bay WMA Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 26 Figure 10. 24-Hour Management Volume for the Santa Monica Bay WMA As shown in Table 5, reasonable assurance of compliance is demonstrated for the two priority watersheds within the Beach Cities SMB WMA based on full implementation of the suite of projects identified. A schedule identifying implementation milestones for each project is provided in Section 7.1. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 27 3.5 RAA Results - Dry Weather Compliance Demonstration. According to monitoring and observation data collected through the Beach Cities CIMP, low flow diversions have proven effective at intercepting and diverting non-exempt dry weather flow from SMB. Therefore, reasonable assurance of compliance during dry weather is demonstrated for the Beach Cities SMB WMA. 4 DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AREA 4.1 Identification of Water Quality Priorities As part of the EWMP process, the Permit requires the Beach Cities WMG to identify water quality priorities within their WMA. The list of WBPCs defined in the original Beach Cities EWMP has been revised based on the most recent updates to applicable TMDLs and 303(d) listings, as well as CIMP monitoring data collected through June 2020. The updated WBPC list for Dominguez Channel WMA is summarized in Table 6. Table 6. Water Body Pollutant Combinations – Dominguez Channela Category Water Body Pollutant – Applicable Condition Reason for Categorization 1: Highest Priority Dominguez Channel Freshwater Toxicityb – Wet Weather Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors Toxics TMDL (LARWQCB, 2011) Total Copper – Wet Weather Total Lead – Wet Weather Total Zinc – Wet Weather Dominguez Channel Estuary (including Torrance Carson Channel) Total Copper – Wet Weather Total Lead – Wet Weather Total Zinc – Wet Weather Total Cadmium – Wet Weather Total DDT – Year-Round Total PAHs – Year-Round Total PCBs – Year-Round 2: High Priority Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Carson Channel) Indicator Bacteria 2014-2016 303(d) List 3. Medium Priority Dominguez Channel Freshwater Benzo(a)pyrene – Wet Weather Historical exceedance of applicable receiving water limits (California Toxic Rule Human Health Criteria) where MS4 discharge may be causing or contributing to the exceedance a Does not include WBPCs applicable the Beach Cities WMA within the Machado Lake Watershed, which is addressed by the separate Machado Lake Watershed EWMP developed by City of Torrance. b Toxicity is not directly tied to any single pollutant or group of pollutants that can be readily modeled; rather, it is the result of a wide-array of loading from multiple pollutants from various sources. As a result, toxicity will not be modeled as part of the revised EWMP, consistent with the original EWMP. It is assumed that the implementation of various BMPs and resultant control of other pollutants of concern will sufficiently address in-channel toxicity. c EPA banned diazinon on December 31, 2005. Data from 2006-2010 show no diazinon exceedances in Dominguez Channel. Based on these results, no diazinon TMDLs have been developed at this time. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 28 Details related to the identification, prioritization, and potential sources of each of the Dominguez Channel WBPCs can be found in Appendix B. Unless otherwise noted, all WBPCs identified in Table 3 have been addressed as part of the revised RAA. 4.2 RAA Results – Baseline Loads and Target Load Reductions Figure 11 illustrates the modeled analysis regions in the Dominguez Channel WMA. Analysis Regions DC-N-MB, DC-N-RB, and DC-S represent the portions of the cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, respectively, draining to Dominguez Channel above Vermont Avenue (i.e., Dominguez Channel Freshwater). Analysis Region DC-TL is the portion of the City of Torrance that drains to Torrance Lateral, which continues to the Dominguez Channel Estuary. Appendix D provides additional details related to the analysis regions. Figure 11. Dominguez Channel WMA Analysis Region Overview The process for establishing pollutant TLRs necessary to meet water quality priorities for the modeled WBPCs in Dominguez Channel is detailed in Appendix D. A summary of estimated baseline loads and TLRs for each analysis region and WBPC in the Dominguez Channel WMA is provided in Table 7. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 29 Similar to the Santa Monica Bay WMA TLRs, a TLR-equivalent 24-hour management volume was developed for each non-zero TLR. For each analysis region, the largest 24-hour management volume was selected as the target compliance metric, since management of the largest volume will result in management of all others.10 Both load-based TLRs and the equivalent 24-hour runoff management volumes are considered eligible Beach Cities EWMP compliance metrics. Appendix D provides detailed information on the process to calculate TLRs and 24-hour management volumes. 10 Total copper was not included in the assessment of the largest 24-hour management volume, since significant load reductions will be achieved via the copper brake pad reduction (see Section 4.3.2). As a result, the management volumes needed to meet applicable copper TLRs using structural BMPs are significantly reduced. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 30 Table 7. Dominguez Channel WMA Wet Weather TLRs Analysis Region (Receiving Water) Pollutant Critical Condition Baseline Load Target Load Reduction Absolute % of Baseline Load TLR Equivalent 24- Hour Management Volume (ac-ft) DC-N-MB (Dominguez Channel Freshwater) Total Copper 90th percentile daily load 1.3 lb/day 1.1 lb/day 82% 7.3 Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance. Total Zinc 90th percentile daily load 6.9 lb/day 5.3 lb/day 76% 6.7[1] E. coli 90th percentile water year 46.1 1012 MPN/yr 19.0 1012 MPN/yr 41% 2.4 Benzo[a]pyrene 90th percentile daily load 2.6E-03 lb/day 1.8E-03 lb/day 70% 4.0 Toxicity CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance. DC-N-RB (Dominguez Channel Freshwater) Total Copper 90th percentile daily load 4.1 lb/day 3.3 lb/day 81% 24.3 Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance. Total Zinc 90th percentile daily load 22.0 lb/day 16.3 lb/day 74% 22.3[1] E. coli 90th percentile water year 149.8 1012 MPN/yr 53.0 1012 MPN/yr 35% 9.7 Benzo[a]pyrene 90th percentile daily load 7.7E-03 lb/day 5.2E-03 lb/day 67% 12.8 Toxicity CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance. DC-S (Dominguez Channel Freshwater) Total Copper 90th percentile daily load 4.0 lb/day 3.0 lb/day 76% 27.1 Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance. Total Zinc 90th percentile daily load 18.4 lb/day 11.9 lb/day 65% 22.2[1] E. coli 90th percentile water year 393.8 1012 MPN/yr 179.1 1012 MPN/yr 45% 15.3 Benzo[a]pyrene 90th percentile daily load 1.0E-02 lb/day 5.5E-03 lb/day 55% 18.7 Toxicity CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance DC-TL (Torrance Lateral and Dominguez Channel Estuary) Total Copper 90th percentile daily load 11.5 lb/day 10.4 lb/day 91% 36.8 Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance. Total Zinc 90th percentile daily load 65.1 lb/day 57.4 lb/day 88% 35.8[1] Total Cadmium 90th percentile daily load 0.15 lb/day 0.13 lb/day 87% 35.2 E. coli 90th percentile water year 360.8 1012 MPN/yr 175.3 1012 MPN/yr 49% 16.2 Benzo[a]pyrene 90th percentile daily load 2.0E-02 lb/day 1.3E-02 lb/day 67% 34.1 Total PAHs CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance. Toxicity CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance. Total PCBs CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance. Total DDTs CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed to demonstrate compliance. [1]Bold value is the representative (“controlling”) 24-hour management runoff volume for each analysis region. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 31 4.3 BMP Summary As discussed in Section 2 and Appendix D, BMPs were identified and accounted for in the RAA to demonstrate attainment of applicable water quality targets. Because the RAA was calibrated using local water quality and flow data through June 2020, only BMPs implemented or planned to be implemented after this date were accounted for in the RAA. A summary of these BMPs, including programmatic and structural measures, is provided herein. 4.3.1 Redevelopment Redevelopment in the Dominguez Channel WMA was accounted for in the same manner as it was in the SMB Watershed. See discussion in Section 3.3.1 and Appendix D. An example of LID redevelopment project in the Dominguez Channel WMA is the Manhattan Village Mall. The mall is undergoing significant renovations that include a rainwater harvesting and use system, as well as a biofiltration system. The rainwater harvesting system is sized to fully capture the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm from a total of 13.7 acres of on-site drainage area. Projects such as these will further increase the stormwater runoff managed within the Dominguez Channel WMA. 4.3.2 Copper Brake Pad Reduction As was the case in the original Beach Cities EWMP, a load reduction was assumed for copper due to the phased elimination of copper in brake pads. In 2010, California Senate Bill 346 (SB 346) was enacted to eliminate nearly all use of copper in brake pad manufacturing. In 2013, TDC Environmental prepared a technical study for the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) describing the expected percent reduction for copper as a result of the passage of SB 346 (TDC Environmental, 2013). The TDC study identified three possible implementation scenarios, the least aggressive of which estimated that a 52% load reduction in copper will be achieved by 2032 due to the brake pad phase-out. Since the referenced study assumed a 21.2% reduction in urban runoff copper by 2020, and the RAA model was calibrated with local water quality data through June 2020, the load reduction accounted for in the revised RAA was estimated as a weighted fraction of 52%. The difference in estimated total load reduction between 2020 and 2032 (i.e., 52% - 21.2%, or 30.8%) was divided by the assumed remaining load in 2020 (100% - 21.2%, or 78.8%) to estimate the remaining expected load reduction due to the copper brake pad phase-out. Therefore, a 39.1% load reduction was assumed for copper in the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA. To avoid double-counting load reductions, this reduction was applied to the copper load before accounting for future BMP load reductions (i.e., 39.1% was applied to the baseline loads before all other BMP load reductions were accounted for, since BMP performance is dependent on influent loads). 4.3.3 Analysis Region DC-N-MB & DC-N-RB Analysis regions DC-N-MB and DC-N-RB include discharges from the cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach to Dominguez Channel respectively. Both analysis regions also drain to the Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 32 4.3.3.1 Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project The Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project is a multi-benefit stormwater project proposed at Alondra Park, a large park located in the unincorporated County area of EI Camino Village that consists of two park areas and a golf course. The park is due east of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach, under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation. The proposed project has been strategically located in the 13.5-acre park space in the northwest corner of the site. The Project provides the opportunity to capture dry weather flows and stormwater and improve water quality by diverting flows from the LACFCD District Project No. 12 Drain in Manhattan Beach Boulevard and the LACFCD Alondra Park Drain into underground storage galleries totaling 34-acre-feet in total capacity. The captured flows are proposed to be diverted from the galleries into an existing sewer system. During storm events when flows are higher than sewer capacity, water will be treated before being diverted back to the storm drain. The diversion structure and storage galleries will intercept and store dry weather flows and approximately a 0.1-inch storm from the 4,945-acre watershed tributary to Alondra Park. Two existing baseball fields will be restored to new condition and a brand-new soccer field will be installed after the underground storage is constructed, providing enhanced active recreation spaces. Bioswales with native plants will replace existing turf areas along Manhattan Beach Boulevard, providing new habitat and a natural way to slow and treat stormwater and dry weather runoff. The parking lots will be reconstructed with permeable pavement and bioswales. New trees will be planted throughout the park to provide shade and bolster the performance of other green infrastructure. The cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach collectively account for approximately 1,424 acres (29%) of the tributary area to the Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project. As project partners, they will receive a portion of water quality benefits from the overall project, proportional to their drainage area and additional funding that may be provided. At the time of this revised EWMP, Manhattan Beach was estimated to receive 1.76-acre-feet of storage credit and Redondo Beach was estimated to receive 5.29- acre-feet of storage credit. The project has been modeled in the Beach Cities RAA assuming these proportional volumes for each city. Additional information for the project can be found in the Alondra Park Regional Project Safe Clean Water Feasibility Study Report (Los Angeles County, 2019). A high-level project concept is illustrated in Figure 12. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 33 Figure 12. Project Overview – Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project 4.3.3.2 Manhattan Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project The City of Manhattan Beach is planning to implement a series of distributed infiltration BMPs (e.g., drywells) within the DC-N-MB analysis region to meet the city’s allocation of the TLR. Based on initial screening, infiltration BMPs are proposed on 33rd Street west of N. Aviation Boulevard, or on N. Aviation Boulevard north of Marine Avenue. RAA results (see Section 4.4) show that the total 24-hour management volume provided by these BMPs will be 5.1 acre-ft. A project concept is illustrated in Figure 13. A concept plan showing a potential distribution of infiltration BMPs to achieve the required management volume is provided in Appendix E. Exact type and location of each BMP is subject to change. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 34 Figure 13. Project Overview – Manhattan Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project 4.3.3.3 Glen Anderson Park Regional Infiltration Project Glen Anderson Park is multi-use park in the City of Redondo Beach, located adjacent to Lincoln Elementary School between Rindge Lane, Farrell Avenue, and Vail Avenue. The park has significant green space in addition to baseball fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, and a playground. The park, which is owned and operated by the City of Redondo Beach, is adjacent to a 78-inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain (LACFCD BI 0729) that runs under Vaile Avenue. Approximately 480 acres of area within the DC-N-RB analysis region is tributary to this storm drain at the point it flows past Glen Anderson Park. The Glen Anderson Park Regional Infiltration Project will provide infiltration via an underground infiltration basin or a series of drywells, or a combination of both. Pretreatment will be provided following diversion from the Vail Avenue storm drain. A project concept is illustrated in Figure 14. A detailed concept plan of the project as envisioned is provided in Appendix E. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 35 Figure 14. Project Overview – Glen Anderson Park Regional Infiltration Project 4.3.3.4 Redondo Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project The City of Redondo Beach is planning to implement a series of distributed infiltration BMPs (e.g., drywells, porous gutters, porous crosswalks, porous parking lanes, bioswales, etc.) within the DC-N-RB analysis region to meet the remainder of the city’s allocation of the TLR. Based on RAA results (see Section 4.4), the total 24-hour management volume provided by these BMPs will be 8.4 acre-ft. A project concept is illustrated in Figure 15. A concept plan showing a potential distribution of infiltration BMPs to achieve the required management volume is provided in Appendix E. Exact type and location of each BMP is subject to change. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 36 Figure 15. Project Overview – Redondo Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project 4.3.4 Analysis Region DC-S This analysis region includes discharges from the City of Torrance to Dominguez Channel. 4.3.4.1 Torrance Parkway BMPs As discussed in the original Beach Cities EWMP, the City of Torrance is committed to implementing distributed green street BMPs within the watershed to meet RAA requirements. Specific BMP technologies are currently being evaluated, but may include catch basin inlet filters (media filtration devices with a variety of media types and configurations such as cartridge filters, vertical bed filters, etc.), bioretention units, or drywells, where deemed feasible. The City of Torrance has applied for Safe Clean Water funding under the Technical Resources Program to prioritize catch basins for implementation (City of Torrance, 2020b). Collectively, the Torrance Parkway BMPs will be implemented by the City of Torrance at a level that meets the EWMP compliance management volume determined in the RAA (see Section 4.4). A concept factsheet for the proposed Torrance Parkway BMPs is provided in Appendix E. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 37 4.3.5 Analysis Region DC-TL This analysis region includes discharges from the City of Torrance to Torrance Lateral (i.e., Torrance Carson Channel). 4.3.5.1 Torrance Parkway BMPs The City of Torrance will implement the same distributed parkway BMP approach in the DC-TL analysis region as is being applied to the DC-S analysis region. 4.4 RAA Results – Load Reductions and Compliance Demonstration Load reduction calculations for the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA are summarized in Table 8. Reasonable assurance has been demonstrated in all analysis regions. The 24-hour management volumes of the projects are shown in Figure 16 as stacked columns. The figure also breaks down the 24-hour management volume by agency. To spatially represent the RAA output, the 24-hour management volume is illustrated in Figure 17. Drainage areas to 85th percentile, 24-hour design capture projects are shown as hatched polygons, indicating these areas achieve compliance through the alternative compliance path of full 85th percentile, 24-hour design stormwater capture. In addition, areas covered under separate stormwater permits (e.g. Caltrans right-of-way, Torrance Refinery) are shown as hatched polygons, as they were not included in the RAA. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 38 Table 8. Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA RAA Summary Analysis Region Pollutant Final Target Load Reduction BMP Load Reduction Summary Non-Structural BMP LID Redevelopment Regional Project Distributed Projects Total Load Reduction Assurance Achieved? Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % DC-N-MB (DC Freshwater) Total Copper 1.1 lb/day 82% 0.5 lb/day 39% 0.01 lb/day 0.9% 0.2 lb/day 16% 0.4 lb/day 33% 1.1 lb/day 89% Yes Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed n/a Total Zinc 5.3 lb/day 76% 0 lb/day 0% 0.1 lb/day 0.9% 1.6 lb/day 23% 3.7 lb/day 54% 5.4 lb/day 78% Yes E. coli 19.0 1012 MPN/yr 41% 0 1012 MPN/y 0% 0.3 1012 MPN/y 0.7% 8.7 1012 MPN/yr 19% 19.5 1012 MPN/yr 42% 28.5 1012 MPN/yr 62% Yes Benzo[a] pyrene 1.8 E-03 lb/day 70% 0 lb/day 0% 2.4 E-05 lb/day 0.9% 4.9 E-04 lb/day 19% 1.4 E-03 lb/day 56% 2.0 E-03 lb/day 76% Yes 24-Hour Management Need 6.7 ac-ft 100% 0 ac-ft 0% 0.1 ac-ft 0.9% 1.9 ac-ft 29% 5.2 ac-ft 77% 7.2 ac-ft 100% Yes DC-N-RB (DC Freshwater) Total Copper 3.3 lb/day 81% 1.6 lb/day 39% 0.04 lb/day 0.9% 0.5 lb/day 13% 1.3 lb/day 32% 3.4 lb/day 85% Yes Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed n/a Total Zinc 16.3 lb/day 74% 0 lb/day 0% 0.2 lb/day 1.0% 4.1 lb/day 19% 12.4 lb/day 56% 16.7 lb/day 76% Yes E. coli 53.0 1012 MPN/ 35% 0 1012 MPN/y 0% 1.1 1012 MPN/y 0.7% 49.5 1012 MPN/yr 33% 19.1 1012 MPN/yr 13% 69.7 1012 MPN/yr 47% Yes Benzo[a]pyre ne 5.2 E-03 lb/day 67% 0 lb/day 0% 7E-05 lb/day 1.0% 2E- 03 lb/day 25% 4E-03 lb/day 48% 6E-03 lb/day 73% Yes 24-Hour Management Need 22.3 ac-ft 100% 0 ac-ft 0% 0.2 ac-ft/ 1.0% 15.5 ac-ft 69% 8.3 ac-ft 37% 24.0 ac-ft 100% Yes DC-S (DC Freshwater) Total Copper 3.0 lb/day 76% 1.5 lb/day 39% 0.1 lb/day 0.9% 0 lb/day 0% 1.4 lb/day 36% 3.0 lb/day 76% Yes Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed n/a Total Zinc 11.9 lb/day 65% 0 lb/day 0% 0.2 lb/day 1.0% 0 lb/day 0% 11.7 lb/day 64% 11.9 lb/day 65% Yes E. coli 179.1 1012 MPN/y 45% 0 10^12 MPN/yr 0% 2.2 1012 MPN/yr 0.6% 0 10^12 MPN/yr 0% 176.9 10^12 MPN/yr 45% 179.1 1012 MPN/yr 45% Yes Benzo[a]pyre ne 5.5 E-03 lb/day 55% 0 lb/day 0% 9.4 E-05 lb/day 0.9% 0 lb/day 0% 5.5 E-03 lb/day 54% 5.5 E-03 lb/day 55% Yes 24-Hour Management Need 22.2 ac-ft 100% 0 ac-ft 0% 0.3 ac-ft 1.1% 0 ac-ft 0% 21.9 ac-ft 99% 22.2 ac-ft 100% Yes Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 39 Analysis Region Pollutant Final Target Load Reduction BMP Load Reduction Summary Non-Structural BMP LID Redevelopment Regional Project Distributed Projects Total Load Reduction Assurance Achieved? Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % DC-TL (DC Estuary and Torrance Lateral) Total Copper 10.4 lb/day 91% 4.5 lb/day 39% 0.1 lb/day 1.0% 0 lb/day 0% 5.8 lb/day 51% 10.4 lb/day 91% Yes Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed n/a Total Zinc 57.4 lb/day 88% 0 lb/day 0% 0.6 lb/day 1.0% 0 lb/day 0% 56.8 lb/day 87% 57.4 lb/day 88% Yes Total Cadmium 0.13 lb/day 87% 0 lb/day 0% 1.0 E-3 lb/day 0.7% 0 lb/day 0% 0.13 lb/day 87% 0.13 lb/day 87% Yes E. coli 175.3 1012 MPN/yr 49% 0 1012 MPN/y 0% 2.1 1012 MPN/yr 0.6% 0 1012 MPN/yr 0% 173.2 1012 MPN/yr 49% 175.3 1012 MPN/yr 49% Yes Benzo[a]pyre ne 1.3 E-02 lb/day 67% 0 lb/day 0% 2E-04 lb/day 0.9% 0 lb/day 0% 1.3 E-02 lb/day 66% 1.3 E-02 lb/day 67% Yes Total PAHs CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed n/a 24-Hour Management Need 35.8 ac-ft 100% 0 ac-ft 0% 0.3 ac-ft 1.0% 0 ac-ft 0% 35.5 ac-ft 99% 35.8 ac-ft 100% Yes Total DDT CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed n/a Total PCB CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed n/a [2] Please see Table 13 on how the representative 24-hour management volume was selected for each analysis region. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 40 Figure 16. Project Specific 24-Hour Management Volume in Dominguez Channel WMA Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 41 Figure 17. 24-Hour Management Volume Mapping in Dominguez Channel WMA As shown in Table 8, reasonable assurance of compliance is demonstrated for the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA based on full implementation of the suite of projects identified. A schedule identifying implementation milestones for each project is provided in Section 7.2. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 42 4.5 RAA Results – Dry Weather Compliance Demonstration The Beach Cities WMG has attempted to eliminate non-exempt dry weather MS4 discharges using a suite of structural BMPs and non-structural source controls (e.g., water conservation incentives, enhanced IDDE efforts, enhanced education/outreach, and inspection/enforcement to prevent sources of non- stormwater flow). To date, monitoring has shown that the WMG has been successful at this endeavor, and although dry weather flows do still exist in some outfalls draining to the DC, particularly within Torrance Lateral, the WMG has successfully demonstrated through source investigations that these discharges may be considered conditionally exempt. In parallel to the ongoing effort of eliminating dry weather MS4 discharges, the Beach Cities WMG has also planned to utilize structural BMPs to intercept dry weather runoff. In both the Manhattan Beach portion and Redondo Beach portion of the Dominguez Channel WMA, monitoring data has demonstrated a lack of persistent dry weather flows. In addition, the Alondra Park Regional Stormwater Capture Project is anticipated to intercept and fully treat all tributary intermittent non-stormwater flows, including those from Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. Within the City of Torrance’s portion of the Dominguez Channel WMA, significant dry weather source investigations were complete and revealed that persistent non-stormwater discharges were the result of exempt and conditionally exempt sources. The City of Torrance is also committed to targeting non-stormwater discharge sources when implementing the Torrance Parkway BMP distributed projects, thereby treating non-stormwater sources that may be causing or contributing to downstream impairments. A summary of these results is provided in Table 9. Therefore, reasonable assurance of compliance during dry weather is demonstrated for the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) WMA. Table 9．Dry Weather RAA Results – Dominguez Channel WMA Analysis Region Is dry weather flow currently non- existent and/or sufficiently treated or diverted? Are sufficient structural BMP proposed to intercept, treat or divert 100% of dry weather runoff? Is dry weather reasonable assurance demonstrated? DC-N-MB Yes Proposed Yes DC-N-RB Yes Proposed Yes DC-S No Proposed Yes DC-TL No Proposed Yes 5 COST ESTIMATE This section provides estimates of the financial resources that may be required to attain compliance with the MS4 Permit’s RWLs and WQBELs. Planning-level cost estimates associated with implementation of the proposed structural BMPs within the Beach Cities WMG area are provided based on RAA results. Cost estimates are presented as an aid for decision makers and contain considerable uncertainties. Given the iterative and adaptive nature of the EWMP and the many variables associated with the projects, the Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 43 budget forecasts are subject to change based on site-specific BMP feasibility assessment findings, preliminary and final BMP designs and landscaping, BMP effectiveness assessments, results of outfall and receiving water monitoring, and special studies such as those that might result in site specific objectives which could modify water quality objectives or TMDL Waste Load Allocations for a specific WBPC. A financial strategy and details regarding potential funding sources and programs to support the financial resources required for the structural BMPs being proposed in the EWMP are provided in Appendix G. These funding sources and programs may be utilized depending on applicability and feasibility. 5.1 BMP Cost Methodology and Assumptions 5.1.1 Hard Cost Assumptions Costs estimated for structural BMPs include “hard” costs for tangible assets and are determined using a line item unit cost approach, which separately accounts for each material cost element required for the installation of a given BMP. Quantities for each line item were calculated based on BMP storage/treatment volumes and typical design configurations. Unit costs were derived from past projects based in Southern California, recent construction cost/bid information, and vendors. Since the majority of proposed BMPs were located on publicly owned land to reduce land acquisition costs to the extent possible, land acquisition costs were not considered as part of this analysis. 5.1.2 Soft Cost Assumptions Structural BMP cost opinions also include “soft” costs, which include considerations such as design and permitting. Soft costs are project costs that cannot be calculated on a unit cost basis. For conceptual cost estimating, these costs are generally calculated as a percentage of total capital costs. The soft costs considered for each BMP were: • Utility Realignment — Costs associated with the relocation of utilities that are located within the proposed BMP footprint or inhibit construction activities. • Mobilization and Demobilization – The costs associated with activation/deactivation of equipment and manpower resources for transfer to/from a construction site until completion of the contract. • Planning, Permitting, Bond, and Insurance Costs – Cost, including planning and permit fees and personnel hours, of obtaining required permits for BMP installation. Examples of permits needed may include erosion and sediment control, stormwater, construction, and public space permits. Potential bond and insurance costs are also included. • Engineering and Planning – Costs associated with BMP and site design, as well as access for maintenance, environmental mitigation, buried objects, safety/security, traffic control, limited space, and site restoration. • Construction Management – The costs associated with management and oversight of the construction of the BMP, from project initiation until completion of the contract. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 44 Estimated soft costs as percent of total project capital costs are presented in Table 10. These percentages were based on literature, best professional judgment, and data from past projects (Brown and Schueler, 1997; International Cost Engineering Council, 2014). Table 10．Range of Soft Costs for Proposed Structural BMP Projects as a Percent of Capital Cost Item Cost Range Low High Utility Realignment 0% 3% Mobilization/Demobilization1 3% 10% Planning, permitting, bond, and insurance costs 5% 10% Engineering and Planning 14% 40% Construction Management 8% 15% 1 $2,000 minimum fee 5.1.3 Operations and Maintenance Based on past projects completed in Southern California, recent construction cost/bid information, and information from vendors, annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs were assumed to be 2% percent of the capital cost for all proposed structural BMPs. Annual Monitoring costs were assumed to be 1.5% of capital costs, but were only assumed to apply for three full years. O&M opinions for drywells and infiltration basins include cleaning and removal of debris from inlet and drainage pipes, removal of sediment and trash from intake and debris shields, cleanout of trash and accumulated sediment from primary settling chambers, and removal of standing water when observed during dry weather. O&M for green streets includes repairs to eroded areas, incremental landscape maintenance, media and gravel replacement once clogged and surface scarification is no longer effective, removal of trash and debris, and removal of aged mulch with installation of a new layer. O&M costs have been summarized as annual costs, though all activities are not necessarily performed every year of operation. Additional maintenance will be necessary after the estimated project lifecycle, assumed to be 20 years. Extended maintenance for drywells and other subsurface infiltration systems includes excavation and washing of all drain rock on a 25-year cycle, and is estimated to be approximately 60 percent of capital costs. All drainage elements should be replaced on a 50-year cycle, at approximately 125 percent of capital costs. Green streets should be excavated, disposing of existing soil media, and backfilled with new soil media every 25 to 50 years at approximately 90 percent of capital costs. Typical maintenance for trash exclusion devices includes removal of trash and sediment, and catch basins should be cleaned at a minimum of once or twice per year. Trash exclusion devices can be plugged if they are overloaded with sediment or debris, greatly reducing their efficiency. Inspection and cleanout are recommended after major storm events, or storms with a rainfall intensity of greater than one inch in 12 hours. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 45 5.1.4 Additional Design Assumptions Additional design details were assumed for the purpose of the cost estimation presented herein, including, but not limited to: • The percentage of excavated material requiring hauling; • The type and length of BMP inflow and outflow conveyance structures; • The type and quantity of vegetation required for the post-BMP condition; • The percentage of the parcel area requiring hydroseeding for the post-BMP condition; • The type of pre-treatment used for each BMP. 5.2 Summary of Cost Estimates Table 11 summarizes the total cost estimates for each proposed structural BMP, which are composed of the cost to construct or implement each structural BMP plus the associated annual O&M and monitoring costs, with combined costs for proposed structural BMPs by analysis region and by watershed. Not included in these costs are the annual monitoring costs for implementing the CIMP or the costs associated with implementing baseline and enhanced MCMs. From the analysis of potential costs in this section as summarized in Table 11, it is clear that projected costs of implementing the EWMP are substantial and that availability of funds will be critical for the implementation of the EWMP. The Beach Cities agencies are relying heavily on funding of projects through LA County’s Safe Clean Water Program (SCW Program). The SCW Program is designed to prioritize multi-benefit water quality improvement projects identified in regional EWMPs or related watershed plans, including the structural BMPs proposed in the Beach Cities EWMP. Funding applications are reviewed annually for partial or full funding. Additional information is provided in Appendix G. In addition, the Beach Cities WMG individually and collaboratively are committed to pursue funding sources at a State, regional, and local level. These potential sources of funding are discussed in greater detail in Appendix G. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 46 Table 11．Cost Estimates for Proposed Structural BMPs by Analysis Region Analysis Region Project Capital Cost Annual O&M Cost4 Monitoring Cost5 Low High SMB-6-1 Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project $1,995,000 $2,625,000 $45,000 $35,000 Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells $1,615,000 $2,125,000 $35,000 $30,000 Redondo Beach Herondo Distributed Infiltration Project $3,230,000 $4,250,000 $70,000 $55,000 Beach Cities Green Streets Project1 $4,900,000 $4,900,000 $20,000 $55,000 Torrance Basins Enhancement & Expansion Project1 $5,300,000 $5,300,000 $30,000 $80,000 SMB-6-1 Total $17,040,000 $19,200,000 $200,000 $255,000 SMB-5-2 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project1 $17,800,000 $17,800,000 $155,000 $50,000 DC-N-MB Manhattan Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project $1,615,000 $2,125,000 $35,000 $30,000 Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project- Manhattan Beach Portion2 $2,240,000 $2,240,000 $14,800 - DC-N-MB Total $3,855,000 $4,365,000 $49,800 $30,000 DC-N-RB Glen Anderson Park Regional Infiltration Project $3,135,000 $4,125,000 $65,000 $50,000 Redondo Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project $2,090,000 $2,750,000 $45,000 $35,000 Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project- Redondo Beach Portion2 $6,730,000 $6,730,000 $44,500 - DC-N-RB Total $11,955,000 $13,605,000 $154,500 $85,000 DC-S Torrance Parkway BMPs3 $5,200,000 $6,900,000 $115,000 $95,000 DC-TL Torrance Parkway BMPs3 $8,500,000 $11,100,000 $180,000 $155,000 EWMP Total $64,350,000 $72,970,000 $854,300 $670,000 1 Cost estimates taken from SCW Program Feasibility Study. As a result, no range is estimated. For the Beach Cities Green Streets Project, costs are not broken down by project sit and therefore cannot be allocated by analysis region. Since the majority of project sites are within the SMB-6-1 analysis region, the project cost has been accounted for here. 2 Cost estimate based on SCW Program cost allocation by contributing agency as of March 2021. 3 Cost estimate based on per acre-foot cost for other distributed infiltration projects within the Beach Cities EWMP. 4 Assumed to apply annually for the duration of the project life cycle. 5 Assumed to apply annually for the first three years of the project life cycle. 6 ASSESSMENT AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK Adaptive management is a critical component of the EWMP implementation process, and regular EWMP updates are required by the Permit. The CIMP will continue to gather additional data on receiving water conditions and stormwater/non-stormwater quality and flow. These data will continue to support adaptive management at multiple levels, including: (1) tracking improvements in water quality over the course of EWMP implementation, and (2) generating data not previously available to support model updates. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 47 Furthermore, over time, the experience gained through intensive BMP implementation will provide lessons learned to support modifications to the control measures identified in the EWMP. The adaptive management process also includes a schedule for developing and reporting on the EWMP updates, the approach to conducting the updates, and the process for implementing any modifications to the RAA and EWMP to reflect the updates. The adaptive management approach for the Beach Cities EWMP area is designed to address the EWMP planning process and the relationship between monitoring, scheduling, and BMP planning. The adaptive management process outlines how the EWMP will be modified in response to monitoring results, updated modeling results, and BMP implementation. It is designed to accomplish three goals: 1. Clarify the short-term and long-term commitments of the Beach Cities WMG within the EWMP. 2. Provide a structured decision-making process for modifications to the EWMP based on the results of monitoring data. 3. Propose a structure for evaluating compliance with water-quality based permit requirements within an adaptive structure. As previously outlined, the schedule and milestones for the EWMP have been designed around meeting the interim and final TMDL requirements for applicable WBPCs. While the EWMP identifies actions that will lead to compliance with the final TMDL limitations, the specific actions taken will be informed by monitoring data collected under the CIMP, special studies that may be conducted during implementation, and any applicable regulatory changes that could influence the remaining interim and final milestones and schedule. Monitoring data will be utilized to measure progress towards achieving RWLs and WQBELs. An evaluation of monitoring data will be carried out periodically to determine if modifications to the EWMP are necessary. Modifications that are warranted because final milestones are achieved more quickly than anticipated can be made at any time (i.e. no more actions are needed if fewer control measures result in meeting RWLs and/or WQBELs). Modifications that are warranted because insufficient progress is being made will be noted in the annual report and an updated schedule for implementation will be provided. If at any point during the implementation period any of the Permit conditions are modified in response to a regulatory action, TMDL modification, or local studies, the receiving water and outfall monitoring data will be compared to the new RWLs and WQBELs. The same procedure will be followed for evaluating the data and adapting the EWMP, but the new RWLs and WQBELs will be used for the analysis. The process outlined herein applies during the implementation period for the EWMP. At the end of the implementation period for the TMDLs, if the final RWL and/or WQBELs are not being met, either the TMDL must be modified to adjust the schedule or the Beach Cities WMG will need to receive an extension of the compliance deadlines. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 48 7 COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE The following sections present the proposed compliance schedules and project sequencing necessary to meet the final compliance deadlines for the Beach Cities EWMP WPBCs. 7.1 Santa Monica Bay WMA Within the Beach Cities SMB WMA, bacteria is the only WBPC for which a RAA was performed. All other WBPCs are not currently causing or contributing to receiving water exceedances based on an evaluation of outfall and receiving water data. The Beach Cities WMG is currently meeting all applicable interim WLAs in the Santa Monica Bay WMA. Therefore, no interim compliance milestones are necessary. The final wet weather WLA defined in the SMBBB TMDL officially goes into effect in July 2021; however, a Basin Plan Amendment extending the TMDL for three years until July 2024 has been approved by the Regional Board and is pending approval by the State Water Resources Control Board and the State Office of Administrative Law. As discussed by the Beach Cities representatives, other permittees, Regional Board staff, and many other stakeholders during the Regional Board hearing and in comments letters submitted on the TMDL schedule extension, additional time beyond the July 2024 extension will be necessary to complete all of the projects needed to meet the final TLRs. Once the Beach Cities WMG has demonstrated further implementation progress, the WMG anticipates submitting a request via one or more regulatory mechanisms to extend this deadline further. In light of these assumptions and observations, a project implementation schedule expressed in terms of the 24-hour runoff management volume and project completion date was developed to reasonably assure the Beach Cities WMG will meet final TLRs for bacteria during wet weather in the Santa Monica Bay WMA. The schedule is provided in Table 12. Table 12. Project Completion Date and 24-Hour Runoff Management Capacity in SMB WMA Project Name Responsible Agencies Milestone Completion Description Milestone Completion (Year) 24-Hour Runoff Management Capacity (ac-ft) 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project Phase 1 Manhattan Beach Design 2022 81.9 Construction 2024 Torrance Basins Expansion Project Torrance Design 2022 85th percentile, 24- hour storm capture (32.2 ac-ft) Construction 2024 Joint Beach Cities Green Streets Project Hermosa Beach Manhattan Beach Redondo Beach Torrance Design 2023 85th percentile, 24- hour storm capture Construction 2026 Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 49 Project Name Responsible Agencies Milestone Completion Description Milestone Completion (Year) 24-Hour Runoff Management Capacity (ac-ft) Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project Redondo Beach and LACFCD Feasibility Study 2022 26.0 Design 2025 Construction 2028 Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells Hermosa Beach Siting and feasibility study 2025 7.7 Construction 2028 Redondo Beach Herondo Distributed Infiltration Project Redondo Beach Siting and feasibility Study 2025 17.6 Construction 2028 7.2 Dominguez Channel WMA The Beach Cities WMG has been implementing the Beach Cities CIMP program since October 2016 and have been analyzing outfall monitoring data in the Dominguez Channel WMA against applicable interim MS4 WLA WQBELs. No exceedances of interim WQBELs have occurred to date. As a result, and as demonstrated by the RAA, no additional stormwater control measures are required to address interim WQBELs. Furthermore, distributed projects collectively addressing 110 acres of target land use out of a total of 1448.5 acres of target land use in the DC-N-MB & DC-N-RB analysis regions have been completed to meet both previous interim milestones of addressing 3% of target land use by 2021 and addressing 7% of target land use by 2026. Additionally, catch basin inserts have been installed in 30 high- priority catch basins within the DC-S & DC-L analysis regions to meet the first interim 2021milestone in those analysis regions. The final applicable WLAs defined in the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL will be in effect in 2032. As a result, all proposed stormwater control measures must be implemented by 2032 in order to meet the final TLRs. A project implementation schedule expressed in terms of the 24-hour runoff management volume was developed to reasonably assure the Beach Cities WMG will meet final TLRs for all WBPCs in the Dominguez Channel WMA. The estimated project completion time and 24-hour runoff management capacity of proposed projects is summarized in Table 13. The 85th percentile, 24-hour capture projects in the Dominguez Channel WMA are included in Table 13 for informational purposes. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 50 Table 13. Project Completion Date and 24-Hour Runoff Management Capacity in DC WMA Project Name Responsible Agencies Milestone Completion Description Milestone Completion (Year) 24-Hour Runoff Management Capacity (ac-ft) Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project LACFCD Redondo Beach Manhattan Beach Design 2022 7.05[1] Construction 2023 Manhattan Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project Manhattan Beach Feasibility Study 2024 5.2 Design 2026 Construction 2028 Glen Anderson Park Regional Infiltration Project Redondo Beach Feasibility Study 2024 9.4 Design 2026 Construction 2028 Redondo Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project Redondo Beach Feasibility Study 2027 8.3 Design 2029 Construction 2032 Torrance Parkway BMPs Phase 1 Dominguez Channel above Vermont Torrance Siting and feasibility study 2024 21.9 Design 2026 Construction 2028 Torrance Parkway BMPs Phase 2 Torrance Lateral Torrance Siting and feasibility study 2027 35.4 Design 2029 Construction 2032 1 Represents the total volume allocation to Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach, collectively, since the full project will be shared among numerous agencies. 8 REFERENCES Ackerman, D. and K. Schiff, 2003. “Modeling storm water mass emissions to the Southern California Bight.” SCCWRP Report #0390. Journal of Environmental Engineering. April. American Rivers, The Water Environment Federation, the American Society of Landscape Architects, and ECONorthwest, 2012. Banking on Green: A Look at How Green Infrastructure Can Save Municipalities Money and Provide Economic Benefits Community-wide. April. Beach Cities Watershed Management Group, 2014. Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) Work Plan for the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group. June. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 51 Brown, W., and Schueler, T., 1997. The Economics of Stormwater BMPs in the Mid-Atlantic Region: Final Report. Center for Watershed Protection, Silver Spring, Maryland. August. City of Manhattan Beach. 2020. Safe, Clean Water Program Infrastructure Program Feasibility Study Report - 28th Street Storm Drian Infiltration Project. Accessed January 2021 from <https://portal.safecleanwaterla.org/projects-module-api/api/reportdownload/pdf/13/168 > City of Torrance, 2019. Beach Cities Green Streets Project Conceptual Report. City of Torrance, 2020a. Safe, Clean Water Infrastructure Program Feasibility Study Report Stormwater Basin Expansion Project. Accessed January 2021 from https://portal.safecleanwaterla.org/projects- module-api/api/reportdownload/pdf/13/145 City of Torrance, 2020b. Safe, Clean Water Program Technical Resources Summary - Prioritization of Parkway BMPs for Dominguez Channel / Harbors Toxics TMDL. Accessed January 2021 from < https://portal.safecleanwaterla.org/projects-module-api/api/reportdownload/pdf/55/37> International Cost Engineering Council, 2014. (www.icoste.org) LARWQCB (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board), 1995. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). June. LARWQCB, 2010. Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore Debris TMDL. October 25. LARWQCB, 2011. Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL. May 5. LARWQCB, 2012a. Order No. R4-2012-0175 NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, except those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4. November 8. LARWQCB, 2012b. Attachment A to Resolution No. R12-007, Proposed Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan – Los Angeles Region to revise the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL. June 7. LARWQCB, 2014. Guidelines for conducting reasonable assurance analysis in a watershed management program, including an enhanced watershed management program. March 25. LARWQCB, 2015. Approval, With Conditions, of The Beach Cities Watershed Management Group’s Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program, Pursuant to Attachment E, Part IV.B of The Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (NPDES Permit No. CAS004001; Order No. R4-2012-0175). August 25. LARWQCB, 2015b. Final Approved Beach Cities Watershed Management Group’s Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program, Pursuant to Attachment E, Part IV.B of The Los Angeles County Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 52 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit (NPDES Permit No. CAS004001; Order No. R4- 2012-0175). November 12. New Model Colony Builders, LLC (NMC Builders), 2008. New Model Colony Storm Water Quality Treatment Alternatives (DRAFT). Chino, California. September. Public Policy Institute of California (PICC), 2014. Paying for Water in California. SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board), 2004. Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List. September. SWRCB, 2012. Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters in California, California Ocean Plan (Ocean Plan). Adopted October 16, 2012. SWRCB, 2020. Order WQ 2020-0038. In the Matter of Review of Approval of Watershed Management Programs and an Enhanced Watershed Management Program Submitted Pursuant to Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Order R4-20120-0175. SWRCB/OCC Files A-2386, A-2477, and A-2508. November. TDC Environmental, 2013. Estimate of Urban Runoff Copper Reduction in Los Angeles County from the Brake Pad Copper Reductions Mandated by SB 346. February. Thoe, W., Gold, M., Griesbach, A., Grimmer, M., Taggart, M.L., and A.B. Boehm, 2014. Sunny with a Chance of Gastroenteritis: Predicting Swimmer Risk at California Beaches. Environmental Science and Technology. 49(1), pp 423-431. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2005. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Urban Areas. EPA-841-B-05-004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. USEPA, 2012. Santa Monica Bay Total Maximum Daily Loads for DDTs and PCBs. USEPA, 2013a, 2013. “Aquatic life ambient water quality criteria for ammonia – freshwater.” EPA 822- R-12-001. USEPA, 2013b. The Importance of Operation and Maintenance for the Long-Term Success of Green Infrastructure. A Review of Green Infrastructure O&M Practices in ARRA Clean Water State Revolving Fund Projects. Office of Water. United State Environmental Protection Agency. PA-832-R-12-007. USEPA, 2014. Developing an Outreach Strategy. July 1. (http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/swbmp/Developing-an-Outreach-Strategy.cfm) USEPA, 2015. Stormwater Management Model (SWMM). Weiss, P. T., J. S. Gulliver and A. J. Erickson, 2007. Cost and Pollutant Removal of Storm-Water Treatment Practices. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol. 133. Revised Beach Cities EWMP - DRAFT May 2021 Page 53 Werner, I., Deanovic, L.A., Hinton, D.E., Henderson, J.D., de Oliveira, G.H., Wilson, B.W., Krueger, W., Wallender, W.W., Oliver, M.N., Zalom, F.G., 2002. “Toxicity of Stormwater Runoff after Dormant Spray Application of Diazinon and Esfenvalerate (Asana) in a French Prune Orchard, Glenn County, California, USA. Beach Cities Watershed Management Group Revised EWMP Appendix A: History and Regulatory Background JUNE 2021 Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-1 | Page 2021 HISTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND OF THE BEACH CITIES EWMP BEACH CITIES EWMP HISTORY Following adoption of the 2012 Los Angeles Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit1 (Permit), the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, together with the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), collectively referred to as the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (Beach Cities WMG) agreed to collaborate on the development of an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) for the Santa Monica Bay (SMB) and Dominguez Channel areas within their jurisdictions (referred to herein as the Beach Cities EWMP Area). This EWMP is intended to facilitate effective, watershed-specific Permit implementation strategies in accordance with the Permit and summarizes the SMB and Dominguez Channel-specific water quality priorities identified jointly by the Beach Cities WMG, outlines the program plan, including specific strategies, control measures and best management practices (BMPs)2, necessary to achieve water quality targets (Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations [WQBELs] and Receiving Water Limitations [RWLs]), and describes the quantitative analyses completed to support target achievement and Permit compliance. In compliance with the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG submitted to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB) a Notice of Intent (NOI) to develop an EWMP on June 28, 2013 with a revised NOI submitted December 17, 2013. On March 27, 2014, the Beach Cities WMG received a letter from the Executive Officer of the LARWQCB approving the revised NOI submittal. In compliance with the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG then submitted a draft EWMP Work Plan to the LARWQCB on June 26, 2014. Comments were not received. Consistent with the draft EWMP Work Plan and in accordance with the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG submitted a draft EWMP to LARWQCB on June 26, 2015. Following public review and comment, as well as review by LARWQCB, the Beach Cities WMG submitted a revised EWMP on January 20, 2016. After the Group’s submittal of the revised EWMP, additional comments were provided by LARWQCB and modifications were requested. The WMG submitted a second revised EWMP on February 9, 2016 for LARWQCB review and approval. On April 18, 2016 the Beach Cities second revised EWMP was approved by LARWQCB. The Beach Cities WMG immediately began implementation of the approved EWMP. 1 Order No. R4-2012-0175 NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, except those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4. 2 For simplification, the term “BMP” will be used to collectively refer to strategies, control measures, and/or best management practices. The Permit also refers to these measures as Watershed Control Measures. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-2 | Page 2021 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT As outlined in the Permit, the Beach Cities WMG is required to implement an adaptive management process periodically. The adaptive management process serves as a means to comprehensively evaluate the EWMP and evaluate progress toward achieving: • Applicable WQBELs/RWLs; • Improved water quality in MS4 discharges and receiving waters; • Interim milestones; and • Multi-year efforts that were not completed in the current year and will continue into the subsequent year(s), among other requirements. Based on the adaptive management process, as well as other relevant changes within the Beach Cities Area, multiple updates to the Beach Cities EWMP have occurred since its original approval in April 2016: March 2018. In order to investigate the use of centralized high-flow capacity trash device technologies and other approved equivalent systems certified by the State Water Resources Control Board to meet the final Santa Monica Bay Nearshore and Offshore Debris TMDL RWL for trash, the Beach Cities WMG requested an update to the EWMP implementation schedule. The schedule modification only affected interim compliance milestones; no changes to final compliance deadlines occurred. Three tables in the EWMP were updated to reflect the revised interim schedules. August 2019. Following submittal of an Adaptive Management Report in December 2018, the Beach Cities WMG received a letter from the LARWQCB on July 23, 2019, which approved proposed modifications to the Group’s EWMP as set forth in the Adaptive Management Report. Modifications to the EWMP included: • Changes to Control Measures. The City of Torrance originally proposed to install approximately 200 catch basin inlet filters throughout the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of their city. Upon further evaluation, the City of Torrance found that the use of modular wetlands, drywells, and other similar BMPs may be feasible in some portions of the watershed. As a result, language throughout the EWMP was revised to allow for the use of a larger suite of BMPs in these cases. The EWMP was also revised to discuss the source tracking investigation that the Group initiated in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed • Changes to Minimum Control Measures. The EWMP was modified to customize the Group’s Public Information and Participation Program to better address watershed priorities by means of direct, targeted outreach to residents . • Changes to Water Body Pollutant Combinations Based on the 303(d) List. The Group revised its EWMP to reflect changes incorporated into the 2014-2016 303(d) list. These changes included the addition of mercury and arsenic to the Category 2 Water Body Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-3 | Page 2021 Pollutant Combination (WBPC) list within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed, and removal of ammonia from the Category 2 WBPC list in the Dominguez Channel Watershed. • Changes to the Final Target Date for Hermosa Beach Trash TMDL. The Santa Monica Bay Marine Debris TMDL allows municipalities that have adopted smoking, polystyrene, and plastic bag ban ordinances an additional three years (until March 20, 2023) to meet the final TMDL compliance deadline. While the City of Hermosa Beach had passed smoking and polystyrene bans within three years of the original adoption date of the TMDL (by March 20, 2015), the final plastic bag ban ordinance was not adopted until September 1, 2015. During the recent reconsideration of the Santa Monica Bay Debris TMDL, the City of Hermosa Beach requested to be granted the additional 3 years. After being open for public comment and receiving no objections, this extension was approved by the Regional Board. EWMP REVISION AND RESUBMITTAL In addition to periodically adapting the EWMP , Permittees are required to submit an updated EWMP with an updated Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) by June 30, 2021 for review and approval by the Regional Water Board Executive Officer. The updated RAA is required to incorporate both water quality data and control measure performance data, and any other information informing the adaptive management process, gathered through December 31, 2020. The latest version of the Beach Cities EWMP (June 2021) has been drafted to meet these requirements, as set forth in the Permit. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Watershed Management Programs (WMPs) are a voluntary opportunity afforded by the Permit for Permittees to collaboratively or individually develop comprehensive watershed-specific control plans and are intended to facilitate Permit compliance and water quality target achievement. WMPs and EWMPs also comprehensively evaluate opportunities for collaboration on multi-benefit regional projects that retain all non-stormwater runoff and runoff from the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event while also achieving benefits associated with issues such as flood control and water supply. Additional details on the regulatory background for NPDES Permit and Water Quality Standards and the Permit specifics of WMPs and EWMPs are provided below. NPDES PERMIT The 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) established the NPDES Program to regulate the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States. In 1990, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) developed Phase I of the NPDES Stormwater Permitting Program, which established a framework for regulating municipal and industrial discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater that had the greatest potential to negatively impact water quality within waters of the United States. In particular, under Phase I, USEPA required NPDES Permit coverage for discharges from medium and large MS4 servicing populations greater than 100,000 persons. Operators of MS4s regulated under the Phase I NPDES Stormwater Program were required Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-4 | Page 2021 to obtain permit coverage for municipal discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater to waters of the United States. The LARWQCB designated the MS4s owned and/or operated by the incorporated cities and Los Angeles County unincorporated areas within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County as a large MS4 due to the total population of Los Angeles County. All MS4s within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County are subject to the waste discharge requirements set forth in the Permit. General permit requirements, which are relevant to and must be ensured by WMPs, include (i) a requirement to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges through the MS4, (ii) requirements to implement controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, and (iii) other provisions the LARWQCB has determined appropriate for the control of such pollutants. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS (TMDLS) The CWA also required that the LARWQCB establish water quality standards for each water body in its region. Water quality standards include beneficial uses, water quality objectives and criteria that are established at levels sufficient to protect those beneficial uses, and an anti-degradation policy to prevent degrading waters. The LARWQCB adopted a Water Quality Control Plan - Los Angeles Region (hereinafter Basin Plan) on June 13, 1994 addressing this portion of the CWA which designates beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, and contains implementation programs and policies to achieve those objectives for all waters in the Los Angeles Region. Pursuant to California Water Code section 13263(a), the requirements of the Permit implement the Basin Plan. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters in California, California Ocean Plan (hereinafter Ocean Plan) in 1972 and adopted the most recent amended Ocean Plan on February 4, 2019. The Ocean Plan also establishes water quality objectives and a program of implementation to protect beneficial uses at all MS4 discharge points within Los Angeles County coastal watersheds with the exception of Long Beach. CWA Section 303(d)(1) requires each state to identify the waters within its boundaries that do not meet water quality standards. Water bodies that do not meet water quality standards are considered impaired and are placed on the state’s “CWA Section 303(d) List”. For each listed water body, the state is required to establish a TMDL for each pollutant impairing the water quality standards in that water body. TMDLs establish the allowable pollutant loadings for a water body and provide the basis upon which to establish water quality-based controls (required by NPDES Permits). The 2014-2016 CWA Integrated Report and updated 303(d) list were approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) on October 3, 2017 and by the USEPA on April 6, 2018. Provisions regarding TMDLs are included in NPDES Permits once they have been developed and adopted. STATE ORDER WQ 2020-0038 Order WQ 2020-0038, issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) on November 17, 2020, evaluated nine WMPs and one EWMP to determine whether they satisfied the standards of rigor, accountability, and transparency that were established in the MS4 Permit. Where deemed insufficient in those regards, the Order subsequently ordered the implementation of changes to appropriately satisfy those standards within an assigned schedule. Permittees were required to submit an updated Reasonable Assurance Analysis and EWMP for review and approval Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-5 | Page 2021 by the LARWQCB Executive Officer, including updates to bring the plans into conformance with Order WQ 2020-0038 (SWRCB, 2020). Among other requirements, Order WQ 2020-0038 required all Los Angeles area EWMPs to be updated to address the following: • EWMPs must be clear as to which components constitute definite, enforceable benchmarks, such that failure to achieve those components means that Permittees are not fully implementing the program and must instead comply immediately with receiving water limitations and WQBELs and other TMDL-specific limitations. • For model calibration purposes, the (E)WMPs and associated RAAs must clearly identify the information considered and how that information was used or why it was not used. • With respect to “limiting pollutants,” Groups must justify their use of certain limiting pollutants to ensure that the use of a limiting pollutant can be reasonably expected to result in attainment of water quality standards for all the water body-pollutant combinations addressed. • Load reductions associated with “non-modeled” controls must be justified. Permittees must not only meet the dates and requirements for implementation of non-modeled controls (to the extent that Permittees rely on them to form milestones), they must also demonstrate that they have actually achieved the assumed load reduction by the milestone date when that milestone is based entirely off non-modeled controls. • With respect to compliance milestones and scheduling, where anticipated water quality improvements have not occurred despite implementation of the scheduled control measures, the EWMP must be updated to respond. Order WQ 2020-0038 requires these updates to be incorporated into EWMPs no later than June 30, 2021. The Revised Beach Cities EWMP has been updated to reflect these requirements. WMPS AND ENHANCED WMPS The voluntary WMPs and EWMPs allow Permittees to collaboratively or individually develop comprehensive watershed-specific control plans which a) prioritize water quality issues, b) identify and implement focused strategies, control measures and BMPs, c) execute an integrated monitoring and assessment program, and d) allow for modification over time. In general, WMPs and EWMPs are intended to facilitate Permit compliance and water quality target achievement with the goals that: 1) discharges from covered MS4s achieve applicable WQBELs and RWLs and do not include prohibited non-stormwater discharges; and 2) control measures are implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). WMPs and EWMPs are to be developed based on the LARWQCB’s Watershed Management Areas (WMAs) or subwatersheds thereof. Permittees within a WMA may elect to prepare an EWMP, which is defined in the Permit as a WMP that comprehensively evaluates opportunities for collaboration amongst Permittees and other partners on multi-benefit regional projects that, wherever feasible, retain, 1) all non-stormwater runoff, and 2) all stormwater runoff from the 85th percentile 24 hour storm event while also achieving Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-6 | Page 2021 benefits associated with issues such as flood control and water supply. Where regional projects cannot achieve these standards, the EWMP must demonstrate through a Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA), that applicable water quality targets are achieved. The Permit specifies that an EWMP shall: 1. Be consistent with Permit provisions, 2. Incorporate applicable State agency input on priorities and key implementation factors, 3. Provide for meeting water quality standards and other CWA obligations, 4. Include multi-benefit3 regional projects which retain stormwater from the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm 5. Include watershed control measures which achieve compliance with all interim and final WQBELs in drainage areas where retention of the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm is infeasible with reasonable assurance, 6. Maximize the effectiveness of funding, 7. Incorporate effective innovative technologies, 8. Ensure existing requirements to comply with technology based effluent limitations and core requirements are not delayed, and 9. Ensure a financial strategy is in place. APPLICABILITY OF EWMP The agencies of the Beach Cities WMG have been working together since 2004 to implement the previously developed Jurisdictional Groups 5 and 6 Implementation Plan for the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria (SMBBB) TMDLs, including a BMP Siting Study (Geosyntec, 2011a) and Dry Weather Source Characterization and Control Study (Geosyntec, 2011b) for two high priority subwatersheds, along with joint implementation of programmatic solutions. Since 2004, the Beach Cities have also been jointly funding receiving water monitoring consistent with the Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring Plan for the SMBBB TMDLs along the shoreline of the Beach Cities WMG EWMP Area. These ongoing efforts by the Beach Cities WMG to comply with the SMBBB TMDLs have been an effective facilitator for the development and implementation of the EWMP. This EWMP is applicable to the Beach Cities EWMP Area, which consists of all of the incorporated MS4 areas of the cities of Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Torrance and includes the infrastructure of the LACFCD within those jurisdictions, with the exception of the Machado Lake Watershed, which is being addressed separately by the City of Torrance, and is not addressed in this EWMP. A small portion of the City of Redondo Beach is located within the Machado Lake Watershed boundary but has successfully requested to be removed from the Machado Lake Implementation Plan and other compliance requirements pertaining to the Machado Lake Watershed. 3 Potential multiple benefits include neighborhood greening, water conservation and/or supply, groundwater recharge, public education and/or awareness, etc. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-7 | Page 2021 The beach areas within the geographic area of the Beach Cities WMG do not have any storm drain infrastructure that collect and discharges beach runoff directly to the receiving water and are therefore considered non-point sources and not subject to the MS4 Permit or EWMP requirements. Similarly, the Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach piers are not part of the MS4; they are non-point sources excluded from the MS4 Permit scope and therefore the EWMP. The Redondo Beach Pier including the King Harbor Marina are included in the geographic scope of the Beach Cities WMG EWMP as these areas are equipped with MS4 infrastructure. The Wylie Sump is a retention basin with no outlet and capacity significantly larger than the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. Therefore, its drainage area has been excluded from the EWMP, with no analyses required. EWMP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS The Permit requires a stakeholder process for collaboration on EWMP development. The development process must: • Provide appropriate opportunity for stakeholder input; • Include participation in the Permit-wide Technical Advisory Committee (TAC); and • Incorporate applicable State agency input on priority setting and other key implementation issues. The Beach Cities WMG has conducted outreach to engage the public, LARWQCB staff, and other interested parties to support EWMP development. Input has been incorporated, as appropriate. These efforts are described in more detail below. Public Workshops – Original EWMP. For development of the original EWMP, public workshops were held on May 21, 2014 at the Joslyn Center in Manhattan Beach and on May 27, 2015 at the Redondo Beach Public Library. An informational presentation was provided followed by a question and answer period to encourage stakeholder input. Concerns were noted and considered during EWMP development by the Beach Cities WMG. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The Beach Cities WMG actively participated in the Los Angeles region TAC and applicable subcommittees throughout the EWMP process. LARWQCB Presentations. The Beach Cities WMG presented the proposed RAA approach to LARWQCB staff on April 9 and June 6, 2014. LARWQCB staff provided feedback during these meetings and in general they were supportive of the proposed approach. One additional meeting was held on July 31, 2014 to discuss Torrance-specific matters. In addition, the Beach Cities WMG presented the EWMP and progress on implementation to the LARWQCB in July 2018. Public Website – Revised EWMP. As part of the revision process for the Beach Cities EWMP in 2021, the Beach Cities WMG created a website that highlighted the EWMP update process; provided details for each proposed project; and allowed for public comment to be submitted. The website was launched in May 2021. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-8 | Page 2021 Public Virtual Webinar – Revised EWMP. The Beach Cities WMG held a public virtual webinar on May 19, 2021 to present the draft Revised EWMP to the Beach Cities communities and receive public input. The webinar was publicized in advance by each of the four Beach Cities. City Council Review and Adoption. The cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance each presented the draft Beach Cities EWMP (2015) and draft revised Beach Cities EWMP (2021) to their respective city councils for review and adoption. This process is open to the public, and residents are encouraged and invited to share comments related to the EWMP at these council meetings. Voiced concerns and recommendations were noted and considered for inclusion in the final EWMP and final Revised EWMP. The EWMP also addresses other State agency priorities, including the following: California Water Action Plan (2016 Update). The California Water Action Plan proposes several statewide actions that are well aligned with the expected benefits of the proposed projects in this EWMP, including: • Expand Water Storage Capacity and Improve Groundwater Management (infiltration BMPs): This action aims to address the need to expand the state’s storage capacity, whether in surface or groundwater to provide widespread public and environmental benefits. The California Water Action Plan states that “state agencies will work with tribes and federal, regional and local agencies on other actions related to promoting groundwater recharge and increasing storage, including improving interagency coordination, aligning land use planning with groundwater recharge...” The regional and distributed BMP projects proposed in the Beach Cities EWMP may contribute to groundwater recharge and expanding storage capacity throughout the Beach Cities WMG. • Increase Operational and Regulatory Efficiency: Monitoring data collected under the CIMP to measure progress toward achieving RWLs and WQBELs and to determine if modifications to the Beach Cities EWMP are necessary may provide the benefit of increased operational and regulatory efficiency. Improving data availability may also improve coordination of operations of all major water supply, flood control, hatchery facilities, and habitat restoration projects. 2014 Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (GLAC IRWM Plan). The goal of the GLAC IRWM Plan is to achieve sustainable management of water resources in the Greater Los Angeles County. The plan lists several regional objectives to achieve this goal. The Beach Cities EWMP contributes to some of the objectives outlined in the plan, including the following: • Water Quality: This objective aims to comply with water quality regulations by improving the quality of urban runoff, stormwater, and wastewater. The Beach Cities EWMP contributes to this objective by proposing new distributed and regional stormwater capture opportunities in areas prioritized by statewide and regional regulations and water quality conditions. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-9 | Page 2021 • Open Space and Recreation: This objective aims to protect, restore, and enhance natural process and habitats. Several of the regional EWMP projects (i.e. 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project, Beach Cities Green Streets Project) provide opportunity for expanded habitat and increased green space. STORMS Storm Water Strategy (California Water Boards, 2016). The Storm Water Strategy assists in achieving the actions identified in the California Water Action Plan, including the aforementioned action of expanding water storage capacity and improving groundwater management. The Storm Water Strategy supports efforts to improve interagency coordination and identify needs for groundwater recharge opportunity. The Storm Water Strategy also lists six overarching objectives. The Beach Cities EWMP contributes to some of these objectives, including the following: • Increase Stakeholder Collaboration on a Watershed Scale: The Beach Cities WMG agreed to collaborate on the development of this EWMP for the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel Watershed areas within their jurisdictions to facilitate effective, watershed-specific Permit implementation strategies. • Establish Financially Sustainable Storm Water Programs: This EWMP provides an overview of potentially available funding sources for programs and projects proposed in the EWMP. The funding sources identified for consideration are the Safe, Clean Water Program, grants, interagency partnerships, bonds, State Revolving Funds, local funding opportunities, and public private partnerships. • Increase Source Control and Pollution Prevention: This EWMP identifies non-modeled programmatic source control BMPs that target priority pollutants. Final Storm Water Resource Plan Guidelines (Guidelines) (December 2015). The Guidelines establish guidance for public agencies to develop Storm Water Resource Plans (Plans) consistent with Water Code sections 10561 through 10565. The Water Code states that a Plan is required as a condition to receive funding for stormwater and dry weather runoff capture projects from any bond approved by voters after January 2014, which also applies to Proposition 1 funding. The Guidelines provide guidance such as clarification on the applicability of the Guidelines, appropriate geographic scale of watersheds for stormwater resource planning, guidance on agencies and organizations to be consulted during Plan development, methods for identifying and prioritizing stormwater and runoff capture projects, project scheduling and implementation strategies, and so forth. A Self-Certified Checklist provided in the Guidelines includes a complete list of the elements of a Stormwater Resource Plan that are considered mandatory per the California Water Code. Fulfilling the mandatory requirements would make the Beach Cities WMG eligible for Proposition 1 Stormwater Grant funding which would be applied toward the proposed Beach Cities EWMP projects. The mandatory required elements highlighted in the Checklist and Self-Certification are either entirely fulfilled by the Beach Cities EWMP (including appended documents) or will be fulfilled on a project-specific basis (See Appendix I for more details on Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix A | History and Background A-10 | Page 2021 the Beach Cities Plan). For example, maximizing flood control will be part of detailed design at the project level. REFERENCES Beach Cities Watershed Management Group, 2014. Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) Work Plan for the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group. June. California Natural Resources Agency, the California EPA, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2016. California Water Action Plan 2016 Update California Water Boards, 2016. STORMS Storm Water Strategy: Strategy to Optimize Resource Management of Storm Water. January 6. Geosyntec Consultants, 2011a. Structural BMP Siting and Conceptual Design Study, Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL Implementation. Produced for SMBBB TMDL Jurisdictional Groups 5 & 6. June. Geosyntec Consultants, 2011b. Dry Weather Source Characterization and Control Summary, Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL Implementation. Produced for SMBBB TMDL Jurisdictional Groups 5 & 6. June. LARWQCB, 2012a. Order No. R4-2012-0175 NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, except those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4. November 8. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2020. Order WQ 2020-0038. In the Matter of Review of Approval of Watershed Management Programs and an Enhanced Watershed Management Program Submitted Pursuant to Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Order R4-20120-0175. SWRCB/OCC Files A-2386, A-2477, and A-2508. November. Beach Cities Watershed Management Group Revised EWMP Appendix B: Water Quality Prioritization and Source Assessment JUNE 2021 Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-1 | Page 2021 WATER QUALITY PRIORITIZATION FOR THE BEACH CITIES EWMP As part of the EWMP, the Permit requires the Beach Cities WMG to identify water quality priorities within their WMA. To accomplish this, the Beach Cities WMG conducted the following for the Beach Cities EWMP Area: 1. Characterized the water quality of stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4 as well as receiving water bodies; 2. Prioritized water body-pollutant combinations (WBPCs); and 3. Assessed sources for WBPCs. This appendix summarizes the above process for the two watersheds comprising the Beach Cities EWMP Area: Santa Monica Bay (SMB) Watershed and Dominguez Channel Watershed. SANTA MONICA BAY WATERSHED The western portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area consists of approximately 7,800 acres of land that drains to SMB. This accounts for 53% of the total Beach Cities WMG area, and includes portions of the cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, and the entirety of the City of Hermosa Beach. The majority of the SMB Watershed consists of residential land uses. Table B-1 provides a land use breakdown of the Beach Cities EWMP Area by city. Land uses for this watershed are shown on Figure B-1. Table B-1. Beach Cities EWMP Area - SMB Watershed Land Use Distribution Agency Agriculture Commercial Education Industrial MF Residential SF Residential Vacant Total (ac) Total (%) Hermosa Beach (ac) - 130.0 16.3 13.3 254.5 380.4 51.7 846.1 10.8% Manhattan Beach (ac) - 210.6 120.5 12.8 209.4 1425.9 109.3 2088.6 26.8% Redondo Beach (ac) 25.3 312.2 150.2 99.0 717.6 1184.3 103.7 2592.3 33.2% Torrance (ac) 28.1 246.9 91.6 87.4 335.0 1359.3 125.8 2274.1 29.2% Total (ac) 53.4 899.8 378.6 212.5 1516.4 4349.9 390.5 7801.1 100% Total (%) 0.7% 11.5% 4.9% 2.7% 19.4% 55.8% 5.0% 100% - Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-2 | Page 2021 Figure B-1. Beach Cities WMG Land Uses within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-3 | Page 2021 WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION Beneficial Uses The Basin Plan (LARWQCB, accessed 2021) identifies receiving waters within the Los Angeles region and sets regulatory objectives for these receiving waters. Within the SMB Watershed, identified receiving water bodies include SMB itself as well as coastal beaches within the Beach Cities WMG Area. Regulations set forth in the California Ocean Plan (SWRCB, 2019) are therefore also applicable to the SMB Watershed. Both the Basin Plan and Ocean Plan regulate waste discharges to protect the quality of surface waters for use and enjoyment by the general public. Regulations set forth in the Basin Plan are based on assigned beneficial uses for each receiving water body. Beneficial use designations for receiving waters within the Beach Cities WMG Area include: Municipal and Domestic Supply (MUN): Uses of water for community, military, or individual water supply systems including, but not limited to, drinking water supply. Industrial Service Supply (IND): Uses of water for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water quality including, but not limited to, mining, cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire protection, or oil well re-pressurization. Navigation (NAV): Uses of water for shipping, travel, or other transportation by private, military, or commercial vessels. Water Contact Recreation (REC-1): Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These include, but are not limited to, swimming, wading, water-skiing, skin and scuba diving, surfing, what water activities, fishing, or use of natural hot springs. Non-Contact Water Recreation (REC-2): Uses of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but not normally involving body contact with water, where ingestion of water is reasonably possible. These uses include, but are not limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tide pool and marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities. High Flow Suspension (HFS): Applies to water contact recreational activities associated with the swimmable goal regulated under the REC-1 use, non-contact water recreation involving incidental water contact regulated under the REC-2 use, and the associated bacteriological objectives set to protect those activities. Commercial and Sport Fishing (COMM): Uses of water for commercial or recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or other organisms including, but not limited to, uses involving organisms intended for human consumption or bait purposes. Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM): Uses of water that support warm water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates. Marine Habitat (MAR): Uses of water that support marine ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of marine habitats, vegetation such as kelp, fish, shellfish, or wildlife (e.g., marine mammals, shorebirds). Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-4 | Page 2021 Wildlife Habitat (WILD): Uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, vegetation, wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates), or wildlife water and food sources. Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE): Uses of water that support habitats necessary, at least in part, for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species established under state or federal law as rare, threatened, or endangered. Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR): Uses of water that support habitats necessary for migration, acclimatization between fresh and saltwater, or other temporary activities by aquatic organisms, such as anadromous fish. Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN): Uses of water that support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early development of fish. Shellfish Harvesting (SHELL): Uses of water that support habitats suitable for the collection of filter-feeding shellfish (e.g., clams, oysters, and mussels) for human consumption, commercial, or sports purposes. Wetland Habitat (WET): Uses of water that support wetland ecosystems, including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of wetland habitats, vegetation, fish, shellfish, or wildlife, and other unique wetland functions which enhance water quality, such as providing flood and erosion control, stream bank stabilization, and filtration and purification of naturally occurring contaminants. According to the Ocean Plan (SWRCB, 2019), “The beneficial uses of the ocean waters of the State that shall be protected include industrial water supply (IND); water contact recreation (REC-1) and non-contact recreation (REC-2), including aesthetic enjoyment; navigation (NAV); commercial and sport fishing (COMM); mariculture; preservation and enhancement of designated Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS); rare and endangered species (RARE); marine habitat (MAR); fish migration (MIGR); fish spawning (SPWN) and shellfish* harvesting (SHELL).” Additional beneficial uses are defined as follows: Mariculture: The culture of plants and animals in marine waters independent of any pollution source. ASBS: Those areas designated by the State Water Board as ocean areas requiring protection of species or biological communities to the extent that maintenance of natural water quality is assured. ASBS are also referred to as State Water Quality Protection Areas – Areas of Special Biological Significance (SWQPA-ASBS). Table B-2 summarizes the existing beneficial uses for the Santa Monica Bay water bodies in the Beach Cities WMG Area, as designated in the Basin Plan. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-5 | Page 2021 Table B-2. Beach Cities EWMP Area - SMB Water Bodies and Beneficial Uses Water Body MUN IND NAV REC1 REC2 HFS COMM WARM MAR WILD RARE MIGR SPWN SHELL WET2 Santa Monica Bay Nearshore + Offshore1 E E E E E E E E E E E Manhattan Beach E E E E E E P E Hermosa Beach E E E E E E E3 E King Harbor E E E E E E E E Redondo Beach E E E E E E E E E E3 E Torrance Beach E E E E E E E E3 E E = Existing beneficial use 1 The Preservation of Biological Habitats (BIOL) beneficial use is not included since no Areas of Special Biological Significance are present within the Beach Cities WMG Area. 2 Water bodies designated as WET may have wetlands habitat associated with only a portion of the water body. Any regulatory action would require a detailed analysis of the area. 3 Most frequently used grunion spawning beaches. Other beaches may be used as well. SMB Watershed Data Analysis An evaluation of existing water quality conditions, including characterization of stormwater discharges from the MS4 as well as receiving water quality, was carried out as part of this EWMP revision to support identification and prioritization/sequencing of management actions, to the extent possible based on available data. To evaluate water-quality conditions within the SMB Watershed, a review of previous studies was conducted to characterize receiving water bodies within the Beach Cities WMG Area. Monitoring data analyzed were limited to water quality and flow data collected per the Beach Cities Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP); and bacteria data collected as part of the SMB Beaches Bacteria TMDL Coordinated Shoreline Monitoring Program (CSMP). A summary of this analysis is provided below. WATER BODY-POLLUTANT CLASSIFICATION Receiving waters (and paired outfalls) from the Santa Monica Bay Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area were screened for water quality priorities by reviewing TMDLs, the State’s 303(d) list, and additional water quality data. Each identified water quality priority for a given receiving water body was categorized as a waterbody pollutant combination (WBPC). WBPCs were classified into one of three categories, in accordance with the Permit. Category 1 – Highest Priority WBPCs under Category 1 (highest priority) are defined in the Permit as “water body-pollutant combinations for which WQBELs and/or RWLs are established.” These WBPCs include: SMB beaches for bacteria (wet and dry weather): These are considered Category 1 due to the SMBBB TMDL. Although the TMDL remains in effect, both Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach (all Jurisdiction 5 sites) were removed from the 2014-2016 303(d) list because applicable water quality standards for the pollutant are not being exceeded. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-6 | Page 2021 SMB offshore/nearshore for dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethanes (DDTs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): These are considered Category 1 due to the USEPA TMDL for DDT and PCBs for SMB Offshore/Nearshore. However, the TMDL relied on a limited dataset to establish stormwater load allocations, relying on a single study (Curren et al., 2011) from a single creek (Ballona Creek, which is outside the Beach Cities watershed area) to establish MS4 WLAs throughout the entire SMB Watershed. It does not present sufficient data to assign MS4 contributions to the DDT and PCB concentrations observed in SMB; therefore, direct RAA modeling for these pollutants cannot reasonably be conducted at this time without the use of a surrogate (e.g., TSS). Despite the lack of data for RAA modeling purposes, the load-based WQBELs for DDT and PCBs established by the TMDL were set to be the existing stormwater loads (i.e., based on data used in the TMDL, no MS4 load reduction is expected to be required to achieve TMDL compliance).1 Therefore, it is assumed that no reductions in DDT and PCB loading from the Beach Cities WMG MS4s are required to meet the TMDL and reasonable assurance of compliance is assumed to be demonstrated without modeling. As discussed below, monitoring data conducted to-date per the Beach Cities CIMP confirms this assumption, as 27 discrete outfall sample events have resulted in no exceedances of either the DDT or total PCBs numeric targets. SMB Offshore/Nearshore is 303(d)-listed for fish consumption advisory due to DDT and PCBs. Therefore, the fish consumption advisory will be assumed to be addressed by the DDT and PCB categorization. SMB Offshore/Nearshore was previously 303(d) listed for toxicity, but USEPA's data evaluation showed only 3 out of 116 samples exhibited toxicity (USEPA, 2012). The WBPC was removed from the 2014-2016 303(d) list. SMB offshore/nearshore for debris: This is considered Category 1 due to the TMDL for Debris for SMB Offshore/Nearshore. The Permit states, “Pursuant to California Water Code section 13360(a), Permittees may comply with the trash [debris] effluent limitations using any lawful means. Such compliance options are broadly classified as full capture, partial capture, institutional controls, or minimum frequency of assessment and collection… and any combination of these may be employed to achieve compliance.” While trash was not modeled as part of the RAA, the RAA qualitatively described how the Beach Cities WMG Agencies will comply with the SMB Debris TMDL WQBELs by stating the following: “Compliance with the SMB Debris TMDL will be met through a phased retrofit of full-capture or partial capture systems throughout Beach Cities Santa Monica Bay WMA in combination with institutional measures, e.g., street sweeping with posted no-parking on street sweeping days, to meet each interim and 1 The TMDL states, “Because existing stormwater loads from the watersheds are lower than the calculated total allowable loads to achieve sediment targets, the waste load allocations for stormwater in this TMDL are based on existing load estimates of 28 g/yr for DDT and 145 g/yr for PCBs.” These WLAs are further divided among Los Angeles County MS4, CalTrans, the Construction General Permit, and the Industrial General Permit. The assigned WLAs for the entire LA County MS4 within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed is 27.08 g/yr for DDT and 140.25 g/yr for PCBs, which are equivalent to the TMDL-estimated existing MS4 stormwater loads. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-7 | Page 2021 final compliance deadline. Hence, these constituents do not require a TLR to be calculated and were not modeled as part of the revised RAA” (Beach Cities EWMP, 2021). “Highest Priority” WBPCs have been assigned based strictly on the Permit definition. Not all of these pollutants (e.g., DDT and PCBs) have been definitively linked to MS4 sources. As a result, this categorization and prioritization will continue to be reevaluated based on results from the water quality monitoring efforts conducted under the CIMP. Category 2 – High Priority WBPCs under Category 2 (high priority) are defined in the Permit as, “Pollutants for which data indicate water quality impairment in the receiving water according to the State’s Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List (State Listing Policy) (SWRCB, 2015) and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the impairment.” The following Category 2 WBPCs have been identified in the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area based on the 2016 303(d) list: SMB offshore/nearshore for Mercury: Although listed on the 2016 303(d) list, no data is available linking MS4 discharges from the Beach Cities EWMP Area with mercury exceedances in Santa Monica Bay. Rather, the listing was based on a limited set of fish tissue and sediment sampling data collected under the City of Los Angeles Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES permit. Two (2) of thirty-two (32) sediment samples exceeded the Basin Plan narrative objective for mercury based on the effects range median for saline waters (predictive of sediment toxicity) for mercury of 0.71 mg/Kg dry weight (Long et. al., 1995). In addition, two (2) of nineteen (19) fish tissue samples exceeded the OEHHA fish contaminant goal of 0.22ppm (Klasing et. al., 2008). This data was collected during 2006 and 2007, more than ten years ago. Since the listing was finalized, mercury has been added to the Beach Cities CIMP suite of analytes for Santa Monica Bay. To-date, mercury has been analyzed through the Beach Cities CIMP during the past three years, comprising a total of 15 wet weather outfall samples and 18 wet weather receiving water samples. No exceedances of the Ocean Plan Target (0.4 ug/L) have occurred. Therefore, it is assumed that no reductions in mercury loading from the Beach Cities WMG MS4s is required to meet the Ocean Plan target and reasonable assurance of compliance is assumed to be demonstrated without modeling. The Beach Cities WMG will continue to monitor for mercury in accordance with their CIMP and will revise their WBPC list, as applicable, based on evaluation of the data. SMB offshore/nearshore for Arsenic: Although listed on the 2016 303(d) list, no data is available linking MS4 discharges from the Beach Cities EWMP Area with arsenic exceedances in Santa Monica Bay. Rather, the listing was based on a limited set of fish tissue sampling data collected under the City of Los Angeles Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant NPDES permit. Nineteen (19) of 19 fish tissue samples collected in the Santa Monica Bay exceeded the USEPA Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis for arsenic in fish tissue of 0.0034 ppm (USEPA, 2000). This data was collected during 2006 and 2007, more than ten years ago. Since the listing was finalized, arsenic has been added to the Beach Cities CIMP suite of analytes for Santa Monica Bay. To-date, arsenic has been analyzed through the Beach Cities CIMP during the past three years, comprising a total of 15 Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-8 | Page 2021 wet weather outfall samples and 18 wet weather receiving water samples. No exceedances of the Ocean Plan Target (80 ug/L) have occurred. Therefore, it is assumed that no reductions in arsenic loading from the Beach Cities WMG MS4s is required to meet the Ocean Plan target and reasonable assurance of compliance is assumed to be demonstrated without modeling. The Beach Cities WMG will continue to monitor for arsenic in accordance with their CIMP and will revise their WBPC list, as applicable, based on evaluation of the data. Category 3 – Medium Priority WBPCs under Category 3 (medium priority) are defined in the Permit as, ”Pollutants for which there are insufficient data to indicate water quality impairment in the receiving water according to the State’s Listing Policy, but which exceed applicable RWLs contained in this Order and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the exceedance.” The Beach Cities WMG has been collecting outfall and paired receiving water data in the SMB Watershed per their approved CIMP since 2016. Implementation of the CIMP has resulted in the successful monitoring of 15 wet weather events to-date, with two outfall sites and two receiving water sites monitored per event. Through June 2020, no water quality impairments (besides those discussed above) have been identified. As a result, there are no Category 3 WBPCs in the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area. The Beach Cities agencies understand that additional data collected as part of their approved CIMP may result in modifications to WBPCs and water quality priorities. Under these conditions, the Beach Cities EWMP will be updated. Figure B-2 provides a brief conceptual overview of the process used to identify and categorize the WBPCs within the Beach Cities EWMP Area. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-9 | Page 2021 Figure B-2. Process for Categorizing Water Body-Pollutant Combinations S OURCE ASSESSMENT The following data sources were reviewed as part of the updated source assessment for the WBPCs listed previously: • Findings from the Permittees’ Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharge Elimination Programs (IC/ID); • Findings from the Permittees’ Industrial/Commercial Facilities Programs; • Findings from the Permittees’ Development Construction Programs; • Findings from the Permittees’ Public Agency Activities Programs; Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-10 | Page 2021 • TMDL source investigations; • Watershed model results; • Findings from the Permittees’ monitoring programs, including but not limited to, CIMP and TMDL compliance monitoring; and • Any other pertinent data, information, or studies related to pollutant sources and conditions that contribute to the highest water quality priorities. The following source assessment is broken down by pollutants applicable to the SMB Watershed. Indicator Bacteria The Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria (SMBBB) TMDLs for dry and wet weather were the first bacteria TMDLs adopted by the LARWQCB. The SMBBB TMDLs were opened for reconsideration in 2012 and recently in 2021, although the source assessment was not part of these updates. As a result, the general findings from the original source assessment remain unchanged. These findings are summarized in the 2012 Basin Plan Amendment for the reopened SMBBB TMDL (Attachment A to Resolution No. R12-007): “With the exception of isolated sewage spills, dry weather urban runoff and stormwater runoff conveyed by storm drains and creeks is the primary source of elevated bacterial indicator densities to SMB beaches” (LARWQCB, 2012b). The SMBBB TMDL source assessment (LARWQCB, 2002) maintained that dry weather urban runoff and stormwater runoff were the primary sources of elevated bacteria concentrations at SMB beaches at the time of the TMDL. Although definitive information regarding the specific sources of bacteria within the watershed was not presented, speculation provided in the dry weather staff report provided some insight into possible sources at the time: “Urban runoff from the storm drain system may have elevated levels of bacterial indicators due to sanitary sewer leaks and spills, illicit connections of sanitary lines to the storm drain system, runoff from homeless encampments, illegal discharges from recreational vehicle holding tanks, and malfunctioning septic tanks among other things. Swimmers can also be a direct source of bacteria to recreational waters. The bacteria indicators used to assess water quality are not specific to human sewage; therefore, fecal matter from animals and birds can also be a source of elevated levels of bacteria, and vegetation and food waste can be a source of elevated levels of total coliform bacteria, specifically” (LARWQCB, 2002). Information on non-MS4 sources of surf zone bacteria along specific SMB beaches was provided by the City of Malibu in its comment letter on the SMBBB TMDL reconsideration, based on a comprehensive review of local and Southern California source identification studies (City of Malibu, 2012): “A number of recent Santa Monica Bay studies have further identified and confirmed natural (non-anthropogenic) sources of fecal indicator bacteria including plants, algae, decaying organic matter, beach wrack and bird feces – implicating these as potentially significant contributors to exceedances (Imamura et al 2011, Izbicki 2012b). Beach sands, sediments and Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-11 | Page 2021 beach wrack have been shown to be capable of serving as reservoirs of bacteria, possibly by providing shelter from UV inactivation and predation by allowing for regrowth (Imamura et al 2011, Izbicki et al 2012b, Lee et al 2006, Ferguson et al 2005, Grant et al 2001, Griffith 2012, Litton et al 2010, Phillips et al 2011, Jiang et al 2004, Sabino et al 2011, and Weston Solutions 2010). In fact, enterococci include non-fecal or “natural” strains that live and grow in water, soil, plants and insects (Griffith, 2012). Thus, elevated levels of enterococci in water could be related to input from natural sources. The phenomenon of regrowth of bacteria from either anthropogenic or natural sources has been suggested by several studies as a possible source of beach bacteria exceedances (Griffith 2012, Litton et al 2010, Weston Solutions 2010, Izbicki et al 2012b, Weisberg et al 2009).” To address the identification of dry weather bacteria sources within or to the MS4s, the Beach Cities WMG agencies have implemented measures to divert dry weather flows from all storm drains discharging at point zero shoreline monitoring locations. A total of eight low flow diversions are operational within the Beach Cities EWMP area, and have proven to be effective at diverting dry weather flows from reaching the wave wash. Wet weather bacteria sources are believed to be derived from the entire watershed, and potentially include a mixture of human sources, non-human anthropogenic sources (e.g., pet waste), and non-anthropogenic sources (e.g., birds and other urban wildlife, storm drain biofilms/regrowth, beach sands and wrack). A wet weather stormwater monitoring study by the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) investigated bacteria concentrations in stormwater runoff from various land uses in the Los Angeles region (Stein et al, 2007). Results showed that wet weather runoff event mean concentrations (EMCs) for fecal coliform bacteria were highest for agricultural land uses, followed by commercial and educational, single family residential, multi-family residential, open space, industrial, and transportation. In this study, results showed that bacteria concentrations in stormwater are highly variable, with concentrations often varying by one to two orders of magnitude during a single storm, and by up to five orders of magnitude on seasonal and inter-annual scales. CIMP data collected by the Beach Cities at various outfalls over the past five years confirms that FIB concentrations within MS4 discharges during wet weather are higher than applicable objectives. However, these results do not distinguish between sources or human health risk. In 2019, the Beach Cities WMG initiated a screening-level microbial source tracking (MST) investigation at targeted outfalls to determine if human, dog, and bird waste was a source of fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) in MS4 discharges, and therefore potentially of FIB in the surf zone during discharge events. The investigation was focused on two Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL (SMBBB TMDL) shoreline monitoring locations (antidegradation sites SMB 6-2 and SMB 6-5), including the storm drain network tributary to these locations. Preliminary results from these investigations, which include both dry and wet weather sample events, indicate that both dogs and illicit connections/discharges may be two significant sources of bacteria to the MS4 outfalls. As a result of these findings, programmatic controls such as a robust illicit connection and discharge Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-12 | Page 2021 detection and elimination program as well as dog waste outreach programs may have a significant impact on FIB loads within Santa Monica Bay. DDT and PCBs The Palos Verdes Shelf portion of Santa Monica Bay is an active EPA Superfund site that is subject to Superfund Remedial Action Objectives which include institutional controls, natural recovery, capping, and monitored attenuation, and are expected to result in improved water quality (USEPA, 2012). From 1947 to 1971, large quantities of DDT were discharged from the Montrose Chemical plant in Los Angeles to the Los Angeles County Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP), which discharges to the Palos Verdes Shelf. PCBs also entered the JWPCP from several industrial sources in the Los Angeles area. These DDT and PCBs discharges passed through the JWPCP and were deposited on the Palos Verdes Shelf. There have also been reports of recently discovered illegal offshore dumping of waste barrels containing DDT acid sludge between Catalina Island and the Palos Verdes coast.2 There is also concern that the rate of erosion on the southwest portion of the Palos Verdes Shelf could bring previously buried deposits to the surface. Concentrations of DDT and PCBs deposited in the surface sediments of the Santa Monica Bay have decreased substantially since the early 1970s and during this time period the benthic communities in the Palos Verdes shelf and Santa Monica Bay have improved substantially to the point where impairments to benthic communities are not seen; however, DDT and PCBs are still present at levels of concern for bioaccumulation and human health (USEPA, 2012). This contamination of DDT and PCBs in the sediments of Santa Monica Bay, largely centered on the Palos Verdes shelf, has led to a large number of fish advisories for much of Santa Monica Bay and a commercial fishing ban in the area around the Palos Verdes Shelf. As a result, the USEPA issued the Santa Monica Bay DDT and PCBs TMDL in 2012 and the TMDL objectives were established to meet fish concentrations for human consumption. With respect to stormwater, the TMDL does not specifically characterize MS4 loadings, though it does recognize that “DDT and PCBs are no longer detected in routine stormwater sampling from Ballona Creek or Malibu Creek.” Since initiation of implementation of the Beach Cities CIMP in 2016, 15 total storm events have been monitored at a combination of different outfall and receiving water sites across the Beach Cities Area in the Santa Monica Bay Watershed. In total, 27 outfall-specific sample events have taken place over that time.3 During no event has an exceedance of either the DDT or total PCBs numeric targets occurred. 2 https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-coast-ddt-dumping-ground/#nt=1col-7030col1-mainnt=00000173-4a29-dafc-a977-dabb7b330001-liA9promoSmall-1col-7030col1-main 3 The Beach Cities CIMP requires a rotation of outfalls to be utilized for water quality monitoring. Additionally, prior to the 2019-2020 monitoring year, two outfall sites were combined into a single outfall monitoring site. As a result, some years now include monitoring at two outfalls, while other years include monitoring at only one outfall. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-13 | Page 2021 Trash Source information for trash within SMB is provided by the SMB Nearshore Debris TMDL. A detailed source breakdown is not provided, but other debris TMDLs attribute trash to general areas such as “litter from adjacent land areas, roadways, and direct dumping and deposition” (LARWQCB, 2008) while also attributing trash inputs to point sources such as storm drains. The plastic pellet portion of the SMB Debris TMDL is not applicable to the Beach Cities WMG, as the respective Agencies have applied and have gained approval to be exempt from this portion of the TMDL. Arsenic and Mercury As stated previously, Santa Monica Bay was recently added to the State’s 2014/16 and draft 2018 303(d) list as being impaired by arsenic and mercury based on sediment and fish tissue data. There is currently no data tying these impairments to MS4 discharges from the Beach Cities WMG. Since these listings were first finalized, mercury and arsenic have been added to the Beach Cities CIMP suite of analytes for Santa Monica Bay. To-date, both constituents have been analyzed during nine wet weather sample events at two receiving water monitoring locations and a total of three (rotating) outfalls. No exceedances of the Ocean Plan Target for mercury (0.4 ug/L) or arsenic (80 ug/L) have occurred across these events in either the outfall discharges (15 discrete samples) or receiving water samples (18 discrete samples). WBPC PRIORITIZATION Based on the water quality characterization above, the WBPCs have been classified into one of three categories, in accordance with the Permit: highest priority, high priority, and medium priority. This categorization is intended to prioritize WBPCs in order to guide the implementation of structural and institutional BMPs. Table B-3 presents the prioritized WBPCs within the SMB Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area. WBPCs categorized below are subject to change based on future data collected as part of the CIMP or other monitoring program. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-14 | Page 2021 Table B-3. Water Body-Pollutant Combination Prioritization and Pollutant Interim and Final Compliance Targets for Santa Monica Bay Watershed Portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area Category Water Body Pollutant Reason for Categorization WLA/Target Basis Interim TMDL WLA Final TMDL WLA or Other Target 1: Highest Priority Santa Monica Bay Beaches Dry Weather Bacteria SMB Beaches Dry Weather Bacteria TMDL Daily and Weekly Sampling Schedule N/A Summer-Dry Single Sample Allowable Exceedance Days (AED)1 met Winter-Dry period Single Sample AED1 met Wet Weather Bacteria SMB Beaches Wet Weather Bacteria TMDL Daily and Weekly Sampling Schedule 50% cumulative percentage reduction from total required exceedance day reduction2 Single Sample and Geometric Mean AED1 and GM target met Santa Monica Bay Trash/ Debris SMB Debris TMDL Annual monitoring Incremental reduction from baseline waste load allocation3 (6815.6 gals/year) 100% reduction from baseline waste load allocation3 (6815.6 gals/year) DDTs SMB PCBs and DDT TMDL 3-Year Average N/A 27.08 g/year4 PCBs SMB PCBs and DDT TMDL 3-Year Average N/A 140.25 g/year4 2: High Priority Santa Monica Bay Mercury 2016 303(d) list Single Sample Exceedance N/A 0.4 ug/L5 Arsenic 80 ug/L5 3: Medium Priority Analysis of monitoring data from outfalls and receiving waters do not currently result in the identification of any Category 3 WBPCs 1 Per the Basin Plan Objective REC1 Water Bodies Limit for Bacteria. Please refer to the latest version of the MS4 Permit for allowable exceedance day limits of each subwatershed. 2 Total required exceedance day reduction is defined as the difference between existing exceedance day and the allowable exceedance day for each subwatershed 3 Baseline WLA is the sum of baseline WLA from Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach 4 This limit is applicable to all of Santa Monica Bay. 5 Ocean Plan target. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-15 | Page 2021 DOMINGUEZ CHANNEL WATERSHED The northeastern portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area is tributary to Dominguez Channel 4 (including Torrance Carson Channel) and is comprised of approximately 7,024 acres of land, the majority of which is comprised of residential land uses (29.6% single family residential and 10.1% multi-family residential). Industrial land use is the second highest category in the watershed, accounting for 24.9% of all land uses in the watershed. This watershed accounts for 47% of the total Beach Cities EWMP Area, and includes portions of the Cities of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance. Storm drains from the Cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach drain through the City of Lawndale before discharging to the freshwater portion of Dominguez Channel. The City of Torrance’s MS4 discharges directly to Dominguez Channel (freshwater) and Torrance Carson Channel (Torrance Lateral). Collectively, this portion of the study area is referred to as the Dominguez Channel Watershed. Table B-4 provides a land use breakdown of the Beach Cities EWMP Area by city. Compared to the SMB Watershed within the Beach Cities Area, the Dominguez Channel Watershed has significantly lower residential land use (39.7% compared with 75.2% in the SMB Watershed) and significantly higher industrial land use (24.9% compared with 2.7%). Land uses for this watershed are shown on Figure B-3. Table B-4. Beach Cities EWMP Area – Dominguez Channel Watershed Land Use Distribution Agency Agriculture Commercial Education Industrial MF Residential SF Residential Transportation Vacant Total (ac) Total (%) Manhattan Beach (ac) - 109.3 - 77.5 51.0 68.5 - 56.8 363.0 4.7% Redondo Beach (ac) 11.3 225.6 15.7 199.5 458.2 259.6 22.2 59.7 1251.8 16.0% Torrance (ac) 94.8 763.4 243.6 1667.3 276.3 1978.4 96.6 288.4 5408.8 69.3% Total (ac) 106.1 1098.3 259.2 1944.3 785.5 2306.5 118.8 404.8 7023.6 100% Total (%) 1.4% 14.1% 3.3% 24.9% 10.1% 29.6% 1.5% 5.2% 100% 4 Other portions of the Dominguez Channel Watershed, including Los Angeles County Unincorporated areas, are addressed by separate EWMP groups. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-16 | Page 2021 Figure B-3. Beach Cities WMG Land Uses within the Dominguez Channel Watershed Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-17 | Page 2021 WATER QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION Beneficial Uses As discussed previously, the Basin Plan (LARWQCB, accessed 2021) identifies receiving waters within the Los Angeles region and sets regulatory objectives for these receiving waters. The Basin Plan regulates waste discharges to protect the quality of surface waters for use and enjoyment by the general public. Regulations set forth in the Basin Plan are based on assigned beneficial uses for each receiving water body. Beneficial use designations for receiving waters within the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel Watershed Area are summarized in Table B-5 below. Table B-5. Beach Cities EWMP Area – Dominguez Channel Watershed Water Bodies and Beneficial Uses Water Body MUN NAV REC1 REC2 HFS COMM WARM EST MAR WILD RARE MIGR SPWN SHELL WET3 Dominguez Channel P1 P E E P P E Torrance Lateral2 P1 P E E P P E Dominguez Channel Estuary P E E E E E E E E E E = Existing beneficial use P = Potential beneficial use 1 Designated under SB 88-63 and RB 89-03. Some designations may be considered for exemption at a later date. 2 Listed in Basin Plan Table 1 as a “major surface water,” tributary to Dominguez Channel Estuary. 3 Water bodies designated as WET may have wetlands habitat associated with only a portion of the water body. Any regulatory action would require a detailed analysis of the area. The high flow suspension beneficial use, which was approved by the USEPA as a Basin Plan Amendment in 2004, applies to Dominguez Channel and its tributaries. During days on which this beneficial use suspension is in effect, bacteriological objectives applicable to Dominguez Channel and its tributaries are suspended. The high flow suspension applies on days with rainfall greater than or equal to ½ inch and the 24 hours following the end of such an event. Dominguez Channel Watershed Data Analysis An evaluation of existing water quality conditions, including characterization of stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from the MS4 as well as water quality of the receiving water bodies within the Beach Cities WMG Area, was carried out as part of this EWMP to support identification and prioritization/sequencing of management actions, to the extent possible based on available data. Analyzed raw monitoring data were limited to data collected as part of the Beach Cities CIMP and the Mass Emission Station monitoring program established by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW). The Beach Cities WMG has been collecting outfall data in the Dominguez Channel Watershed per their approved CIMP since 2016. Implementation of the CIMP has resulted in the successful monitoring of 15 wet weather events to-date, with two outfall sites monitored per event. Paired Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-18 | Page 2021 receiving water data are collected and analyzed from two relevant monitoring stations by other agencies: the Dominguez Channel Mass Emission Station (Station S28), located in Dominguez Channel at Artesia Blvd on the Torrance city boundary; and Tributary Station “Project No. 1232” (Station TS19), located in Torrance Carson Channel (Torrance Lateral) within the City of Carson. WATER BODY-POLLUTANT CLASSIFICATION Receiving waters (and paired outfalls) from the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area were screened for water quality priorities by reviewing TMDLs, the State’s 303(d) list, and recent available water quality data. Each identified water quality priority for a given receiving water body was categorized as a WBPC. WBPCs were classified into one of three categories, in accordance with the Permit. Figure B-2 provides a conceptual overview of the process used to identify and categorize the WBPCs within the Beach Cities EWMP Area. In order to categorize and prioritize the WBPCs within the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area, relevant TMDLs, 303(d) listings, recent available monitoring data, and water quality objectives from the Basin Plan were considered. Category 1 – Highest Priority WBPCs under Category 1 (highest priority) are defined in the Permit as “water body-pollutant combinations for which WQBELs and/or RWLs are established.” These WBPCs include: Dominguez Channel (above Vermont Avenue) for copper, lead, and zinc in wet weather: These WBPCs are considered Category 1 due to the Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxics and Metals TMDL (Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL) (LARWQCB, 2011). Dominguez Channel for toxicity: This is considered Category 1 due to the Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxics and Metals TMDL. Toxicity is not directly tied to any single pollutant or group of pollutants that can be readily modeled; rather, it is the result of a wide-array of loading from multiple pollutants from various sources. Additionally, toxicity monitoring since 2016 has shown no exceedances of applicable water standards at Dominguez Channel Mass Emissions Station or within Torrance Lateral. As a result, toxicity was not modeled as part of the revised EWMP RAA, consistent with the original EWMP. It is assumed that the implementation of various BMPs and resultant control of other pollutants of concern will sufficiently address in-channel toxicity. Dominguez Channel Estuary (Dominguez Channel below Vermont Ave) for copper, lead, zinc, cadmium, DDT, PAHs, and PCBs: These WBPCs are considered Category 1 due to the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL (LARWQCB, 2011). Copper, lead, and zinc were modeled in the latest iteration of the RAA utilizing calibrated pollutant runoff concentrations in WMMS 2.0. Other pollutants (cadmium, DDT, PAHs, and PCBs) were modeled using TSS as a surrogate, based on collected water quality data at the upstream Beach Cities outfalls. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-19 | Page 2021 Category 2 – High Priority Category 2 (high priority) WBPCs are defined as “pollutants for which data indicate water quality impairment in the receiving water according to the State’s Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List (State Listing Policy) (SWRCB, 2015) and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the impairment.” Aside from those WBPCs already identified as Category 1, the remaining WBPC list can be condensed by excluding pollutants which are not stormwater related (i.e., MS4 discharges are unlikely to cause or contribute to the impairment) as well as pollutants which are already being addressed (directly or indirectly) by one of the TMDLs. Therefore, the Category 2 WBPCs are limited to the following: Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) for indicator bacteria. This qualifies as a Category 2 WBPC based on the 303(d) listing for indicator bacteria. Dominguez Channel Estuary for indicator bacteria. This qualifies as a Category 2 WBPC based on the 303(d) listing for indicator bacteria. Category 3 – Medium Priority Category 3 (Medium Priority) designations are applied to WBPCs which are not 303(d)-listed but which exceed applicable RWLs contained in the Permit and for which MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the exceedance. As mentioned previously, the Beach Cities WMG has been collecting outfall data in the Dominguez Channel Watershed per their approved CIMP since 2016, with paired downstream receiving water data collected by other agencies. Implementation of the CIMP has resulted in the successful monitoring of 15 wet weather events to-date, with two outfall sites and two receiving water sites monitored per event. Through June 2021, only a single water quality impairment (besides those discussed above) has been identified: Dominguez Channel Freshwater (not including Torrance Lateral) for Benzo(a)pyrene. This qualifies as a Category 3 WBPC based on historical exceedance of applicable receiving water limits (California Toxic Rule Human Health Criteria) where MS4 discharges may be causing or contributing to the exceedance. The Beach Cities agencies understand that additional data collected as part of their approved CIMP may result in modifications to WBPCs and/or water quality priorities. Under these conditions, the Beach Cities EWMP will be updated. Figure B-2 provides a brief conceptual overview of the process used to identify and categorize the WBPCs within the Beach Cities EWMP Area. S OURCE ASSESSMENT The following data sources have been reviewed as part of the source assessment for the WBPCs listed previously: • Findings from the Permittees’ IC/ID Programs; Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-20 | Page 2021 • Findings from the Permittees’ Industrial/Commercial Facilities Programs; • Findings from the Permittees’ Development Construction Programs; • Findings from the Permittees’ Public Agency Activities Programs; • TMDL source investigations; • Watershed model results; • Findings from the Permittees’ monitoring programs, including but not limited to, CIMP monitoring and TMDL compliance monitoring; and • Any other pertinent data, information, or studies related to pollutant sources and conditions that contribute to the highest water quality priorities. As stated earlier, the Dominguez Channel Watershed has significantly more industrial land use than the Santa Monica Bay Watershed (1,944 acres in Dominguez Channel vs 212 acres in SMB), and as a result, has some notably different pollutant sources when compared to the Santa Monica Bay Watershed. The following source assessment is broken down by pollutants applicable only to the Dominguez Channel Watershed. Copper, Lead, Zinc, and Cadmium The Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL (which applies to wet weather only) provides general information on sources of metals within the Dominguez Channel Watershed but does not provide a detailed source assessment. The TMDL states that “the major pollutant sources of metals into Dominguez Channel and Torrance Lateral freshwaters are stormwater and urban runoff discharges. Nonpoint sources include atmospheric deposition” (LARWQCB and USEPA, 2011). SCCWRP conducted a detailed study of various wet weather pollutants throughout the Los Angeles region, including Dominguez Channel (Stein et al., 2007). They found that industrial land use sites contributed a substantially higher flux of copper and zinc compared to other land uses evaluated, followed by agriculture, recreational, transportation (for copper), and high density residential (for zinc). Wet weather EMCs for copper and zinc, based on the Los Angeles County land use EMC dataset (Geosyntec Consultants, 2012) were similar to SCCWRP’s findings, showing that the highest runoff concentrations are expected from industrial, transportation, and commercial land uses, excluding agriculture. With respect to copper, research has shown that brake pads are a significant source of copper in urban stormwater (TDC Environmental, 2013). Copper and other pollutants are deposited on roads and other impervious surfaces and then transported to aquatic habitats via stormwater runoff. Pollutant loads of copper from urban land uses is expected to decrease due to Senate Bill (SB) 346 which was signed into law on September 25, 2010. This legislation phases out copper in vehicle brake pads over a period of years; milestones include the following dates: • January 1, 2021: Limits the use of copper in motor vehicle brake pads to no more than five percent by weight; and • January 1, 2025: Limits the use of copper in motor vehicle brake pads to no more than 0.5 percent by weight. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-21 | Page 2021 A separate study focusing on zinc showed that the major sources of zinc in urban runoff are outdoor zinc surfaces (including galvanized surfaces) and tire wear debris (TDC Environmental, 2013). Cadmium has similar sources, including tires and engine parts, as well as gasoline, antifreeze, and diesel oil. One study found that tire wear accounts for over 50 percent of the total cadmium and zinc loads in urban runoff (David et. al., 2001). For lead, SCCWRP found that the greatest land use contributors were agricultural (minimal in Dominguez Channel Watershed), high density residential, and recreational (horse) land uses (Stein et al., 2007). Based on the Los Angeles County land use EMC dataset (Geosyntec Consultants, 2012), the highest lead contributing land uses are agriculture, industrial, commercial, and single family residential. Lead was also formerly used as an additive in gasoline and is still used in general aviation gasoline (Avgas) for small piston-engine aircraft. According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Avgas emissions are the largest contribution to relatively low levels of lead emission in the U.S. (FAA, 2015). This has contributed to the contamination of some soils near highways and streets and in drainage ways in urban areas. Exhaust particulates, fluid losses, drips, spills, and mechanical wear products continue to contribute lead to street dust. For both copper and lead, the SCCWRP and Los Angeles County datasets indicate that average EMCs exceed applicable CTR continuous concentration criteria for each land use sampled. For zinc, some land uses (single family residential, education, and vacant) have average EMCs below the CTR continuous concentration criterion, while others (commercial, industrial, transportation, multi-family residential, and agriculture) exceed this criterion. These land use EMC datasets were used to support BMP placement as part of the RAA. Significantly, monitoring results collected as part of the Beach Cities CIMP demonstrate that lead levels within Beach Cities discharges are meeting final TMDL limits. Toxicity As is the case with metals, the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL does not provide a detailed source assessment for toxicity within the Dominguez Channel Watershed, nor is a linkage provided to other specific surrogate pollutants, such as total suspended solids or dissolved metals. The source assessment simply states that “the major sources of organo-chlorine pesticides [and] PCBs…into Dominguez Channel are stormwater and urban runoff discharges. Nonpoint sources include atmospheric deposition and fluxes from contaminated sediments into the overlying water” (LARWQCB and USEPA, 2011). Pesticides are used in urban settings for structural pest control, landscape maintenance (parks, golf courses, cemeteries, and rights-of-way), vector control, and public health pest control. Two specific pesticides, diazinon and chlorpyrifos, were banned by the USEPA on December 31, 2005. As a result, mass emission monitoring at S28 has resulted in no measured exceedance of the 1 toxicity unit criteria for chlorpyrifos or diazinon in Dominguez Channel since 2006. Similarly, both DDT and PCBs were banned from general production and use in the 1970s, resulting in the elimination of active discharges of these chemicals to Dominguez Channel, SMB, and other local surface water bodies, except from residuals present from legacy sources. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-22 | Page 2021 Toxicity monitoring has been conducted by other agencies in the Dominguez Channel to help assess if MS4 discharges are causing or contributing toxicity exceedances in Dominguez Channel. To date, no toxicity exceedances have occurred within Dominguez Channel or Torrance Lateral receiving waters. As a result, a toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) has not been necessary for the Beach Cities WMG. Indicator Bacteria Although the Dominguez Channel is 303(d) listed for indicator bacteria, a bacteria TMDL has not yet been developed for the watershed. E. coli data collected at outfalls as part of the Beach Cities CIMP indicates that bacteria levels are consistently higher than applicable standards during storm events. The source assessment for indicator bacteria within the Santa Monica Bay watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP area is provided above, and many of these urban anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sources apply to the Dominguez Channel portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area as well. Organochlorine Pesticides (DDT) Organochlorine pesticides (OC pesticides) are a large group of legacy pesticides, including DDT, that were previously used widely throughout the United States. Even though they have been banned from use for many years, they are slow to degrade and continue to persist in the environment. Because of their chemical and physical properties, these pollutants tend to partition and bind preferentially to the surfaces of soil particles. When transported in stormwater-borne sediment to local receiving waters, OC pesticides have been shown to accumulate in the fatty tissue of fish and wildlife and bio-magnify in the food-web. DDT was used widely in the U.S. between 1939 and 1970 as a pesticide. In 1963, DDT was declared a restricted material in California. The last year that substantial amounts of DDT were applied in California was 1970 when 1.2 million pounds of DDT were applied primarily to agricultural areas (LARWQCB, 2010). Considering the ubiquitous use of DDT from 1939 through 1970 and understanding the history of land use and development within the Dominguez Channel Watershed, it is reasonable to expect that DDT was used in residential applications and that DDT and its breakdown products, DDE and DDD, may remain in soils within the watershed. However, outfall sampling data conducted to-date under the Beach Cities CIMP has not led to any detectable quantities of DDT in stormwater runoff. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are mixtures of synthetic organic chemicals that were commonly used for various applications from approximately 1929 until 1979 when the U.S. banned PCB manufacturing, processing, distribution, and use. PCBs may be present in products that were made before 1977 but are still in use today, such as transformers, fluorescent lighting fixtures, household caulking, paints and waxes (USEPA, 2012). U.S. EPA identifies the following list of products and materials that, if produced and installed prior to the 1979 ban, may still contain PCBs:5 5 https://www.epa.gov/pcbs/learn-about-polychlorinated-biphenyls-pcbs#commercial Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-23 | Page 2021 • Transformers and capacitors • Electrical equipment including voltage regulators, switches, re-closers, bushings, and electromagnets • Oil used in motors and hydraulic systems • Old electrical devices or appliances containing PCB capacitors • Fluorescent light ballasts • Cable insulation • Thermal insulation material including fiberglass, felt, foam and cork • Adhesives and tapes • Oil-based paint • Caulking • Plastics • Carbonless copy paper • Floor finish The industrial nature of a significant portion of the Dominguez Channel Watershed implies that most of these may continue to be sources of PCBs in stormwater, with the most significant contributions likely coming from external building materials such as caulk or paint or in utility transformers. However, outfall sampling data conducted to-date under the Beach Cities CIMP has not led to any detectable quantities of PCBs in stormwater runoff. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Including Benzo(a)pyrene Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of organic contaminants that are associated with the release of petroleum products (petrogenic sources) or form from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons (pyrogenic sources). PAHs are an environmental concern because they are toxic to aquatic life and because several of the individual PAH compounds are suspected human carcinogens. Research has shown that the dominant source of origin is pyrogenic (combustion of organic matter) in the Los Angeles Region, and PAHs are often deposited through atmospheric deposition and delivered to waterbodies in stormwater runoff (Sabin et al., 2009). Other non-point sources may include leaking motor oil, tire wear, and vehicular exhaust. PRIORITIZATION Based on the water quality characterization above, the WBPCs have been classified into one of three categories, in accordance with the Permit: highest priority, high priority, and medium priority. This categorization is intended to prioritize WBPCs in order to guide the implementation of structural and institutional BMPs. An RAA was performed on the WBPCs in Categories 1, 2, and 3. Table B-6 summarizes the prioritized WBPCs within the Dominguez Channel Watershed portion of the Beach Cities EWMP Area. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-24 | Page 2021 Table B-6. WBPC Prioritization and Pollutant Interim and Final Compliance Targets for Dominguez Channel Watershed Category Water Body Pollutant Reason for Categorization WLA/Target Basis Interim TMDL WLA Final TMDL WLA or Other Target 1: Highest Priority Dominguez Channel Freshwater[1] Toxicity Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL Monthly Average 2 TUc [2] 1 TUc Total Copper Wet Weather Single Event 207.51 ug/L[2] 9.7 ug/L[3] Total Lead Wet Weather Single Event 122.88 ug/L[2] 42.7 ug/L[3] Total Zinc Wet Weather Single Event 898.87 ug/L[2] 69.7 ug/L[3] Dominguez Channel Estuary (including Torrance Lateral) Total Copper Annual Average 220 mg/kg sediment[2] 31.6 mg/kg sediment 22.4 kg/yr[4] Total Lead Annual Average 510.0 mg/kg sediment[2] 35.8 mg/kg sediment 54.2 kg/yr [4] Total Zinc Annual Average 789.0 mg/kg sediment[2] 121 mg/kg sediment 271.8 kg/yr[4] Cadmium Daily Maximum n/a 1.2 mg/kg sediment DDT Annual Average 1.727 mg/kg sediment[2] 0.25 g/yr[4] Total PAHs Annual Average 31.60 mg/kg sediment[2] 0.134 kg/yr[4] PCBs Annual Average 1.490 mg/kg sediment[2] 0.207 g/yr [4] 2: High Priority Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) and Dominguez Channel Estuary Indicator Bacteria 303(d) List Exceedance Rate over 30-day Period n/a See Footnote 5 3: Medium Priority Dominguez Channel Freshwater Benzo(a)pyrene CIMP Monitoring California Toxics Rule Human Health Standard n/a 0.049 ug/L[6] [1] Wet weather only, based on the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL [2] The interim deadline for Dominguez Channel Toxic TMDL is 3/23/2012. [3] Also applicable to Torrance Lateral as an alternative compliance target. [4] Annual MS4 WLA to the entire Dominguez Channel estuary drainage area. [5] Per the Basin Plan Objective REC1 Water Bodies Limit for Indicator Bacteria, the statistical threshold value of E. coli (320/100 mL) is not to be exceeded by more than 10 percent of the samples collected in a calendar month. [6] The CTR Human Health numeric target is not directly applicable at outfalls, but has been utilized as an evaluative metric in this case. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-25 | Page 2021 REFERENCES City of Malibu, 2012. Comment Letter – Bacteria TMDL Revisions for Santa Monica Bay Beaches. May 7. Curren, J., S. Bush, S. Ha, M.K. Stenstrom, S. Lau, I.H.M. Suffet, 2011. Identification of subwatershed sources for chlorinated pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls in the Ballona Creek watershed. Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 409, Issue 13, pp. 2525-2533. 1 June 2011. Davis A.P., M. Shokouhian, and S. Ni. 2001. Loading estimates of lead, copper, cadmium, and zinc in urban runoff from specific sources. Chemosphere. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2015. Aviation Gasoline, about Aviation Gasoline. (http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/) Geosyntec Consultants, 2011a. Structural BMP Siting and Conceptual Design Study, Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL Implementation. Produced for SMBBB TMDL Jurisdictional Groups 5 & 6. June. Geosyntec Consultants, 2011b. Dry Weather Source Characterization and Control Summary, Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL Implementation. Produced for SMBBB TMDL Jurisdictional Groups 5 & 6. June. Geosyntec Consultants, 2012. A User’s Guide for the Structural BMP Prioritization and Analysis Tool (OCTA-SBPAT v1.0). Prepared for Orange County Transportation Authority. November 2012. Klasing, S. and Brodberg, R., 2008. Development of Fish Contaminant Goals and Advisory Tissue Levels for Common Contaminants in California Sport Fish: Chlordane, DDTs, Dieldrin, Methylmercury, PCBs, Selenium, and Toxaphene. Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Environmental Protection Agency. June 2008. Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD), 2009. Model Program for Bacterial Source Identification and Abatement Plan – Redondo Beach Pier Pilot Program. Final Report and Abatement Plan. December 1. Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), accessed 2021. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/basin_plan_documentation.html LARWQCB, 2010. Machado Lake Pesticides and PCBs TMDL. Staff Report - September 2, 2010. LARWQCB and USEPA, 2011. Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters Toxic Pollutants TMDL. May 5. LARWQCB, 2012a. Order No. R4-2012-0175 NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, except those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4. November 8. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix B | Water Quality Priorities B-26 | Page 2021 LARWQCB, 2012b. Attachment A to Resolution No. R12-007, Proposed Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan – Los Angeles Region to revise the Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL. June 7. Long, E.R., D.D. MacDonald, S.L. Smith, and F.D. Calder, 1995. Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuary sediments. Environmental Management. 19, (1): 81-97. Sabin, L.D., K.A. Maruya, W. Lao, D. Diehl, D. Tsukada, K.D. Stolzenbach, and K.C. Schiff 2009. Exchange of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons among the Atmosphere, Water, and Sediment in Coastal Embayments of Southern California, U.S.A. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 265-274. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP), 2007. Technical Report 510 Sources, Patterns, and Mechanisms of Storm Water Pollutant Loading from Watersheds and Land Uses of the Greater Los Angeles Area, California, USA. Written by E.D. Stein, L.L. Tiefenthaler, and K.C. Schiff. March 2007. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2015. Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List. February 3. SWRCB, 2019. Water Quality Control Plan – Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan). February 4. Stein, E.D., Tiefenthaler, L.L., and Schiff, K.C., 2007. “Sources, Patterns and Mechanisms of Storm Water Pollutant Loading From Watersheds and Land Uses of the Greater Los Angeles Area, California, USA.” Southern California Research Project (SCCWRP), Technical Report 510, March. TDC Environmental, 2013. Estimate of Urban Runoff Copper Reduction in Los Angeles County from the Brake Pad Copper Reductions Mandated by SB 346. February. USEPA, 2000. Office of Science and Technology Office of Water. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis. EPA 823-B-00-007 November. USEPA, 2012. Santa Monica Bay Total Maximum Daily Loads for DDTs and PCBs. Beach Cities Watershed Management Group Revised EWMP Appendix C: Minimum Control Measure Customization and Summary JUNE 2021 Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix C | MCM Enhancements C-1 | Page 2 021 MINIMUM CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY AND CUSTOMIZATION Non-structural BMPs prevent or reduce the release of pollutants or transport of pollutants within the MS4 area but do not involve construction of physical facilities. Non-structural BMPs are often implemented as programs or strategies which seek to reduce runoff and/or pollution close to the source. Examples include but are not limited to: street sweeping, downspout disconnect programs, pet waste cleanup stations, irrigation ordinances, or illicit discharge elimination. Minimum control measures (MCMs) as set forth in the Permit are a subset of non-structural BMPs even though some MCMs include measures that require the implementation of structural BMPs. The Beach Cities WMG has assessed the MCMs defined in the Permit to identify opportunities for focusing resources on the high priority issues in each watershed. The Permit requires the permittees to implement prescribed MCMs in each of six categories/programs: Public Information & Participation Program (PIPP), Industrial/Commercial Facilities, Planning & Land Development, Development Construction, Public Agency Activities (PAA), and Illicit Connection & Illicit Discharges (IC/ID) Elimination. These measures include procedures such as outreach programs, inspections, and reporting requirements designed to reduce runoff-related pollution within each permittees’ MS4 area. As LACFCD has no land use authority, the requirements of Industrial/Commercial Facilities, Planning & Land Development, and Development Construction programs are not applicable to LACFCD outside its own facilities (see Appendix G). RECOMMENDED MCMS AND NON-STRUCTURAL BMPS The Permit allows permittees developing an EWMP the opportunity to customize the MCMs specified in the Permit to focus resources on high priority issues within their watersheds. Modifications to the MCMs must be appropriately justified and still be consistent with 40 CFR § 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(A)-(D). A control measure may only be eliminated based on the justification that it is not applicable to a particular permittee. Customized measures, once approved as part of the EWMP, will replace in part or in whole the prescribed MCMs in the Permit. The Planning & Land Development Program is not eligible for customization in that it may be no less stringent than the baseline requirements in the Permit. However, it can be enhanced over the baseline permit requirements if desired. MCMs in each of the six identified categories are being implemented by the Beach Cities WMG as prescribed under the Permit, and in some cases, MCM program enhancements have been implemented to address watershed priorities for TMDL implementation. A summary of MCM enhancements is provided in Table C-1. Additional modifications may also be made through the Adaptive Management Process. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix C | MCM Enhancements C-2 | Page 2 021 GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR MCM CUSTOMIZATION An approach for evaluating existing institutional MCMs was developed as part of the Beach Cities original EWMP Work Plan and was used to evaluate existing MCMs and develop the customized MCMs. The following steps provide a general framework for MCM customization: 1. Identify MCMs for potential customization. This may include identifying: a. MCM requirements prescribed by the Permit which are not already being implemented by the permittee; b. Currently implemented MCMs which have been enhanced over the previous Permit as part of TMDL implementation, e.g., Enhanced Restaurant Inspection Program; c. Programmatic solutions/non-structural controls identified in TMDL implementation plans which may not yet have been implemented; and d. MCMs which are currently being implemented but which may be excessive in scope. For example, commercial inspections being conducted of retail gasoline facilities which are already heavily regulated through other environmental programs in areas that have no receiving water impairments for the pollutants of concern may be carried out less frequently, or discontinued indefinitely. 2. Identify MCMs which are not applicable. A control measure may be eliminated based on the justification that it is not applicable to a particular permittee. For example, if it is the policy of a permittee not to use pesticides in public agency activities, then there is no need for tracking of pesticide use and this MCM may be proposed for elimination. 3. Assess the effectiveness of the incremental baseline MCM requirements with respect to water quality priorities. The data necessary to quantify this will vary greatly by MCM, but may include information such as: receiving water quality, inspection and reporting records, number of qualifying projects (e.g., number of construction projects greater than 1 acre), number of pet station bags used, amount of material picked up by street sweeping activities, number of employees trained, and maintenance records. Additionally, the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) provides a tool to estimate the effectiveness of stormwater management programs (CASQA, 2015). The tool recommends possible assessment metrics that can be used for various stormwater programs. 4. Quantify the additional resources required to implement the incremental baseline MCMs. This may include estimating additional staff resources in terms of full-time employees, consulting resources, and contracted services. 5. Assess the effectiveness and resources required to implement the customized MCM. The process to quantify these will be the same as the process used to quantify the baseline effectiveness of the existing MCM. 6. Compare the assessed effectiveness and resources required to implement the incremental baseline MCMs and the customized MCMs. Customization can be justified in several ways: a. If the customized MCM effectiveness is equal to or greater than the baseline MCM, customization can be justified. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix C | MCM Enhancements C-3 | Page 2 021 b. If an MCM requirement is not applicable, then elimination is justified. c. If the incremental MCM requires additional resources that are disproportionate to the increased effectiveness achieved, then retention of the existing MCM may be justified. 7. Document the customized MCM justification. MCMs were evaluated based on their effectiveness in addressing the WBPCs specific to the Beach Cities EWMP Area and based on the Beach Cities WMGs knowledge and experience with existing MCMs. In many ways, the WMG’s practical experience with MCM implementation over time provides the best insight as to what MCM modifications/enhancements will be most helpful to target the WBPCs of concern in the Beach Cities EWMP Area. Table C-1 summarizes the proposed MCM enhancements common to the Beach Cities WMG, which include promotion of existing regional programs as part of the residential outreach permit requirement; development and distribution of digital and print outreach materials targeted at pollutants of concern in the Beach Cites watersheds; establishment of South Bay Environmentally Friendly Gardening, Landscaping, and Pest Management webpages; and annual restaurant inspections as commercial pollutant sources. For the MCMs applicable to the LACFCD (namely the PIPP, the IC/ID, and the PAA), the LACFCD will continue to implement the requirements both individually and in collaboration with the WMG as identified in the MS4 Permit. In addition to the MCM modifications being implemented by the WMG as a group, the Beach Cities WMG has identified additional city-specific MCM enhancements, which include organization and promotion of educational and cleanup-oriented events, maintenance of pet waste collection stations as a part of the residential outreach requirement, bans on plastic bags and polystyrene food containers in Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach, and maintenance of environmentally-oriented city websites. City-specific MCMs enhanced beyond Permit requirements are specified in Table C-1. The MCM enhancements shown in this table are examples and are not comprehensive. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix C | MCM Enhancements C-1 | Page 2 021 Table C-1. Enhancements to MCMs MS4 Permit MCM Requirements General Beach Cities MCM Enhancement (all agencies) City-Specific MCM Enhancement City of Manhattan Beach City of Redondo Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Torrance Public Information and Participation Program (PIPP)1 Residential Outreach (individually or with group): Ongoing development and dissemination of targeted outreach promoting behavior change in activities among the DIY residential community that is a source of priority pollutants. Leveraging of successful existing statewide and regional outreach programs using print and digital distribution methods. Manhattan Beach is implementing the “Plastic Free MB” campaign to reduce plastic use and waste. The City Council has passed several comprehensive ordinances targeted at plastic reduction: plastic bag ban, ban on polystyrene, prohibition on single-use plastic straws and utensils, and ban on polystyrene meat trays and mylar balloons. The Hermosa Beach City Council has adopted ordinances to ban certain polystyrene and single-use plastic products in Hermosa Beach as well as plastic bags. Dissemination of Public education materials on proper management, recycling and/or disposal of vehicle fluids, household hazardous waste, construction waste, green waste, animal waste, pesticides, fertilizers, and integrated pest management (IPM). Each of the Beach Cities leverages its solid waste franchise contract to conduct outreach on proper waste management in the form of solid waste bill inserts or direct mailers. Household hazardous waste collection is offered to single and multi-family residences. Free pharmaceutical drop off and battery recycling collection containers are located at city facilities. Project Pollution Prevention brochures are provided to residents and contractors via the City's website. The City promotes and hosts annual household hazardous waste roundup events. Project Pollution Prevention brochures are available at the public counter. The City promotes and hosts annual household hazardous waste roundup events. BMP brochures are made available at City outreach and environmental events and public counters. Dissemination of public education information targeted at residential do-it-yourself auto activities Participation in the CalRecycle Used Oil Program. Development and distribution of a Mobile Business Tip Card targeting mobile auto detailers. Dissemination of public education information targeted at residential do-it-yourself home improvement and maintenance activities Distribution of a Small Site (<1 acre) Construction brochure with information regarding material storage and handling as well as spill prevention and clean-up and disposal. Distribution of LA County Residential Pool and Spa Maintenance BMPs for the Environment flyer. Promotion of West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD) programs via SBESC e-blasts and City websites. 1 The Permittees will adapt the PIPP over time to address new information, water quality priorities and stormwater management program priorities – activities listed below provide examples of how the PIPP is currently being enhanced. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix C | MCM Enhancements C-2 | Page 2 021 MS4 Permit MCM Requirements General Beach Cities MCM Enhancement (all agencies) City-Specific MCM Enhancement City of Manhattan Beach City of Redondo Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Torrance Dissemination of public education information targeted at residential do-it-yourself landscaping and gardening activities and integrated pest management. Development and maintenance of Environmentally Friendly Landscaping, Gardening and Pest Control Webpages hosted by the South Bay Environmental Services Center. Development, distribution and promotion of South Bay Homeowner’s Guide to Rainwater Harvesting. Promotion of sustainable landscaping, gardening and water efficiency events and programming hosted by West Basin Municipal Water District. The City provides resources on Ocean-Friendly Gardens and Sustainable Landscapes on its website, and continues to promote Sustainable Landscaping principles in its Green Code planning requirements for new projects or significant remodels. The City maintains a number of California Friendly demonstration gardens. The City maintains a number of California Friendly demonstration gardens. The City created a “tip card” for residential notifications of excessive over irrigation into the streets that provides tips to control and reduce the overspray and ponding in the gutters. The City maintains a number of California Friendly demonstration gardens. The City maintains a number of California Friendly demonstration gardens and hosts rain barrel distribution events. Distribute public education information targeted at residential pet owners The City maintains pet waste collection stations in locations with high frequency of use by residents with dogs. The stations are equipped with disposable bags for collecting and disposing of pet waste. All City parks and the Esplanade are equipped with pet waste collection stations. All City parks, The Strand and the linear greenbelt are equipped with pet waste collection stations. The City also conducts targeted outreach to pet owners to pick up after their pets and follow the City’s pet owner ordinances. City Parks are equipped with pet waste collections stations. Dog waste BMP brochures are made available at City outreach and environmental events and public counters. Residents can also pick up a free pet waste dispenser with biodegradable bags at the One-Stop Permit Center. Maintain stormwater website Development and maintenance of Environmentally Friendly Landscaping, Gardening and Pest Control Webpages hosted by the South Bay Environmental Services Center. The City maintains integrated Environmental Sustainability webpages which links to the Public Works Environmental Programs page that has information on several Public Works environmental programs such as the Solid Waste and Recycling Program, Hazardous Waste Disposal Program, Water Conservation Program, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. The City maintains water quality information on its website. The City has an Environmental Programs webpage, and a Water Conservation webpage which links to the South Bay Environmentally Friendly Landscaping, Gardening and Pest Control Webpages.. The City has an NPDES/Stormwater webpage. The Public Works website provides updates, information and links regarding environmental programs, household hazardous waste, water conservation efforts, and sustainable landscaping and gardening. Torrance also has a dedicated recycling and waste management website. Provide schools with materials to educate children (K-12); can use state produced materials The Beach Cities WMG agencies promote the Generation Earth Program delivered by Tree People through funding by Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Manhattan Beach K-12 schools participate in the Grades of Green. The Roundhouse Marine Studies Lab and Aquarium located at the end of the Manhattan Beach Pier provides outreach to thousands of students through hands-on pollution and ocean awareness classes. City of Redondo Beach staff partners with local schools to help educate students regarding stormwater pollution prevention and recycling. The schools are invited to attend various City sponsored cleanup events. Hermosa Beach elementary schools participate in the Grades of Green program. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix C | MCM Enhancements C-3 | Page 2 021 MS4 Permit MCM Requirements General Beach Cities MCM Enhancement (all agencies) City-Specific MCM Enhancement City of Manhattan Beach City of Redondo Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Torrance D.6 Industrial/ Commercial Implement a Business Assistance Program for select sectors or small businesses - technical assistance and distribute materials to specific sectors. Assistance is targeted to select business sectors based on information that activities may be contributing substantial amounts of pollutants of concern to the MS4 and will evolve over time based on new information and feedback from inspectors and the monitoring program. Examples of current targeted Business Assistance Programs are provided at right: The Beach Cities WMG agencies each implement an annual restaurant inspection program where outreach is provided on proper waste management and stormwater pollution prevention. The Green Business Program recognizes businesses that incorporate sustainability into their daily business practices with the objective of reducing waste. The City’s franchise solid waste hauler offers free commercial waste audits to assess areas of improvement for the reduction of waste. The City also offers a Green Business certification through the California Green Business Network for local businesses that meet certain criteria to reduce impacts on the environment. The City of Redondo Beach staff periodically meet with various business association districts to help educate them on stormwater pollution prevention and recycling topics. In addition, City staff work with the Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce on various water quality related issues affecting businesses within the City. The City of Hermosa Beach offers a Green Business certification through the California Green Business Network for local businesses that meet certain criteria to reduce impacts on the environment. Torrance distributes outreach to businesses on environmental practices and the City of Torrance has partnered with the Environmental Services Center of the South Bay Cities COG to administer a grant from the California Green Business Network to offer the Green Business Certification to its businesses. Inspect Commercial Sources All restaurants are inspected annually instead of twice during 5-year permit. Commercial facilities including nurseries and automotive facilities are inspected every other year instead of twice during 5-year permit. Inspect Industrial Sources Industrial facilities are inspected every other year instead of twice during 5-year permit. D.7 Planning and Land Development Update and Implement ordinance/design standards to conform with LID and Hydromodification requirements Development in the Coastal Zone that requires a Coastal Development Permit is required to meet the LID standards. Hermosa LID ordinance requires all new development projects to implement LID with no minimum size threshold. D.8 Development Construction Program Sites < 1 acre; inspect based upon water quality threat A building/grading site is inspected on average about 12 times and each time the inspector is on site, the condition of stormwater BMPs is noted by the inspector and, if necessary, corrections required. Site < 1 acre; Require sites with soil disturbing activities to implement minimum BMPs Distribution of Small Site Construction brochure in English and Spanish for sites disturbing less than 1-acre that includes an example site schematic and information on each of the required minimum BMPs. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix C | MCM Enhancements C-4 | Page 2 021 MS4 Permit MCM Requirements General Beach Cities MCM Enhancement (all agencies) City-Specific MCM Enhancement City of Manhattan Beach City of Redondo Beach City of Hermosa Beach City of Torrance D.9 Public Agency Activities Prevent vehicle/equipment washing discharges to the MS4, including firefighting and emergency response vehicles City Yard includes designated area for washing vehicles equipped with clarifier and diversion. Additionally, the City Yard bulk storage area includes roof canopies and a dry weather diversion system. The City Yard is retrofitted with a dry weather diversion to the sanitary sewer. Implement IPM program The City has eliminated the use of non-organic pesticide products in parks and open spaces and City maintenance crews and contractors utilize a combination of organic pest control strategies and products to control invasive weeds, insects and rodents throughout city facilities. The City has eliminated the use of non-organic herbicide products in post emergent applications at all parks. Hermosa Beach has designated all City parks pesticide-free zones, and thus uses no pesticides in maintaining these public recreational areas, which include the greenbelt that runs the length of the City. Torrance’s pesticide free zones include around both community gardens, in most playgrounds, and around all picnic areas except for at Columbia and Wilson Park. Required trash management at public events The City implements a tiered matrix of requirements for special events in the City to reduce waste and control litter. Place and maintain trash receptacles/capture devices at newly identified high trash generating areas The City maintains more than 125 additional receptacles for recyclable glass, plastic and aluminum beverage containers. The City has placed trash receptacles in high use area throughout the City, including all bus stops, parks and coastal areas. The City has placed over 100 recycling bins for beverage containers throughout the City, at all bus stops, in heavily used pedestrian areas and parks. Street sweeping - Priority A: 2x/mo.; B: 1x/mo.; C: as needed, not less than 1x/yr. Streets are swept weekly and posted with no parking signs on street sweeping days. Streets are swept weekly and posted with no parking signs on street sweeping days. Streets are swept weekly and posted with no parking signs on street sweeping days. Streets are swept weekly and posted with no parking signs on street sweeping days. Inspect and/or clean Permittee owned parking lots 2x/mo. City parking lots are swept weekly. D.10 Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharges Elimination Continue IC/ID program Implementation of the model California Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or equivalent city-specific ordinance for new landscapes. The City has a water conservation ordinance as well as CalGreen Code provisions for landscaping and irrigation. The City has Landscape Regulations included in the Municipal Code, including water conservation. The City has a Water Conservation and Drought Management Plan Ordinance. The City has a Water Conservation and Drought Management Program, under which City staff proactively identify irrigation overuse. Facilitate public reporting via hotline The City’s “Go Hermosa!” app allows residents to report illicit discharges directly to the City via the app. Beach Cities Watershed Management Group Revised EWMP Appendix D: RAA Report JUNE 2021 DRAFT Reasonable Assurance Analysis Report Revised Beach Cities EWMP 2021 Prepared for Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (Cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District) Prepared by Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. 6167 Bristol Parkway Ste 390 Culver City, CA. 90230 Project Number CWR0645 May 2021 App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx i May 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 2. Water Body Pollutant Combinations .................................................................... 2 3. Model Selection and Overview ............................................................................ 6 3.1. WMMS 2.0 LSPC........................................................................................ 6 3.1.1. Updating Weather Data .................................................................. 9 3.1.2. Adding Fecal Indicator Bacteria as a Modeled Constituent ........... 9 3.1.3. Use of Surrogate Pollutants .......................................................... 10 3.1.4. Model Calibration and Validation ................................................ 10 3.1.5. Revising LSPC Sub-Basin Boundaries ........................................ 10 3.2. WMMS 2.0 SUSTAIN .............................................................................. 11 4. RAA Approach ................................................................................................... 12 4.1. Wet Weather RAA Approach .................................................................... 13 4.2. Dry Weather RAA Approach .................................................................... 14 5. Model Calibration and Validation ...................................................................... 15 5.1. Hydrologic Calibration .............................................................................. 16 5.2. Water Quality Calibration ......................................................................... 22 6. Critical Condition Definition .............................................................................. 26 6.1. Santa Monica Bay WMA .......................................................................... 26 6.1.1. Bacteria (Fecal Coliform) ............................................................. 26 6.2. Dominguez Channel WMA ....................................................................... 26 6.2.1. Indicator Bacteria (E. coli) ........................................................... 26 6.2.2. Metals and Organic Pollutants ..................................................... 26 7. Target Load Reductions ...................................................................................... 28 7.1. Santa Monica Bay WMA .......................................................................... 28 7.1.1. Bacteria (Fecal Coliform) ............................................................. 28 7.1.2. Pesticides and PCBs ..................................................................... 30 7.1.3. Mercury and Arsenic .................................................................... 30 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx ii May 2021 7.1.4. Trash and Marine Debris .............................................................. 30 7.1.5. Final Wet Weather TLR Summary for Santa Monica Bay .......... 30 7.2. Dominguez Channel WMA ....................................................................... 31 7.2.1. Metals ........................................................................................... 31 7.2.2. Pesticides, Organics, and PCBs .................................................... 33 7.2.3. Indicator Bacteria (E. coli) ........................................................... 34 7.2.4. Toxicity ........................................................................................ 34 7.2.5. Final Wet Weather TLR Summary .............................................. 35 8. Stormwater Control Overview ............................................................................ 37 8.1. Methods to Select and Prioritize BMPs ..................................................... 37 8.2. Quantified Non-Structural BMPs .............................................................. 37 8.2.1. Copper Brake Pad Reduction ....................................................... 38 8.3. Modeling Structural BMPs ........................................................................ 38 8.3.1. Regional and Distributed Structural Projects ............................... 40 8.3.2. Low Impact Development Applied to Redevelopment ................ 43 9. Wet Weather RAA Results ................................................................................. 45 9.1. Santa Monica Bay WMA .......................................................................... 45 9.2. Dominguez Channel WMA ....................................................................... 49 10. Dry Weather RAA Result ................................................................................... 54 10.1. Santa Monica Bay WMA .......................................................................... 54 10.2. Dominguez Channel WMA ....................................................................... 54 11. Conclusions......................................................................................................... 56 12. References ........................................................................................................... 57 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx iii May 2021 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Updated Waterbody Pollutant Combinations – Santa Monica Bay ................... 3 Table 2. Updated Waterbody Pollutant Combinations – Dominguez Channel WMA ..... 4 Table 3. Default BMPs Modeled in SUSTAIN .............................................................. 11 Table 4. Calibration Metrics ........................................................................................... 16 Table 5. Summary of Calibrated Hydrology Modeling Parameters ............................... 17 Table 6. Model Performance Summary - Hydrology ..................................................... 18 Table 7. Summary of Calibrated FIB Modeling Parameters .......................................... 23 Table 8. Summary of Calibrated Sediment Loading Parameters ................................... 23 Table 9. Summary of Calibrated Pollutant Loading Parameters .................................... 24 Table 10. Water Quality Model Calibration Summary .................................................. 24 Table 11. Dominguez Channel WMA 90th Percentile Daily Load Summary ............... 27 Table 12. Santa Monica Bay WMA Wet Weather TLR ................................................. 31 Table 13. Dominguez Channel WMA Wet Weather TLRs ............................................ 36 Table 14. Summary of Full 85th-Percentile, 24-Hr Design Storm Capture Project ....... 39 Table 15. Summary of Modeled Projects ....................................................................... 42 Table 16. Redevelopment LID BMP Modeling Parameters ........................................... 44 Table 17. Beach Cities SMB WMA RAA Summary ..................................................... 46 Table 18. Beach Cities DC WMA RAA Summary ........................................................ 50 Table 19. Dry Weather RAA Summary for Dominguez Channel WMA....................... 54 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. HRU Overview .................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2. Hydraulic Network, Drainage Delineation, and Weather Station Overview .... 8 Figure 3. Analysis Region Overview .............................................................................. 12 Figure 4. Dry Weather RAA Process ............................................................................. 14 Figure 5. Locations of Monitoring Stations Utilized for Calibration and Validation .... 15 Figure 6. Flow Comparison at OF-BCEG-03 ................................................................. 19 Figure 7. Flow Comparison at OF-BCEG-05 ................................................................. 20 Figure 8. Flow Comparison at OF-BCEG-07 ................................................................. 21 Figure 9. Example Concentration Comparison Plot (Total Zinc) ................................... 25 Figure 10. Overview of 85th-Percentile, 24-Hour Storm Capture Projects ................... 40 Figure 11. Modeled Regional and Distributed Projects .................................................. 41 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx iv May 2021 Figure 12. 24-Hour Management Volume Breakdown in Santa Monica Bay WMA .... 47 Figure 13. 24-Hour Management Mapping in Santa Monica Bay WMA. ..................... 48 Figure 14. 24-Hour Management Volume Breakdown in Dominguez Channel WMA . 52 Figure 15. 24-Hour Management Volume Mapping in Dominguez Channel WMA ..... 53 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment D.1 Supplementary Calibration Exhibits App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 1 May 2021 1. INTRODUCTION As specified in the 2012 Los Angeles Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit 1 (Permit), the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, together with the County of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), collectively referred to as the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (WMG), developed an Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) for their drainage areas within the Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel watersheds. As a part of demonstrating progress and adaptive management, the Beach Cities WMG is required to submit a revised EWMP to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), including an updated Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA), by June 30, 2021. This report has been prepared to summarize the approach and results of the revised RAA. Building upon the original and revised updated plans in 2015 and 2018, the revised RAA has been conducted to conform to the original RAA guidelines developed by the LARWQCB (LARWQCB, 2014a). The revised RAA also provides updates to include recent monitoring data, project planning and implementation, and modeling advances over the past five years. Where appropriate, it also addresses issues and comments raised by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB, 2020), such as inclusion of relevant data for model calibration, non-structural Best Management Practices (BMP) credit, and application of the limiting pollutant approach. The updated wet weather RAA was conducted using the Watershed Management Modeling System 2.0 (WMMS 2.0), the latest modeling tool developed by LACFCD, to determine a cost-effective implementation strategy to meet applicable water quality standards (i.e., TMDL waste load allocations [WLA] and Basin Plan Objectives) and targets. This modeling platform was approved and endorsed by the LARWQCB as an acceptable regulatory approach for developing the RAA. WMMS 2.0 has the capability of representing wet and dry weather flow discharges, although based on a variety of factors, dry weather flows were not modeled using WMMS 2.0 as part of this effort. For dry weather, a revised semi-quantitative approach was implemented to update the dry weather portion of the revised RAA. The RAA was completed for the full geographic domain of the Beach Cities EWMP area, as described in the revised Beach Cities EWMP. Unless otherwise noted, all Water Body 1 Order No. R4-2012-0175 NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 Waste Discharge Requirements for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles County, except those Discharges Originating from the City of Long Beach MS4. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 2 May 2021 Pollutant Combinations (WBPCs) identified in the EWMP have been addressed as part of this revised RAA. 2. WATER BODY POLLUTANT COMBINATIONS The WBPCs defined in the original Beach Cities EWMP were revised based on the most recent updates to applicable TMDLs and 303(d) listings, as well as available Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) monitoring data.2 The updated WBPC list is summarized in Table 1 and Table 2 for the Santa Monica Bay watershed management area (WMA) and Dominguez Channel WMA, respectively. These tables include the applicable water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs) and the receiving water limitations (RWLs). As with the original Beach Cities EWMP, the RAA was performed to address all Category 1 WBPC interim and final MS4 waste load allocations (WLAs), and all Category 2 and 3 WBPCs where the Beach Cities WMG may have caused or contributed to historical exceedances. For Category 2 and 3 pollutants that do not have a TMDL WLA, various water quality objectives extracted from California Toxic Rule, LARWQCB Basin Plan Objective and California Ocean Plan Objective were selected and utilized for analysis purposes. The WQBELs and RWLs for Dominguez Channel Estuary are included in Table 2 because the City of Torrance portion of the Beach Cities EWMP WMA drains to Dominguez Channel Estuary via Torrance Lateral. This conveyance connectivity makes the City of Torrance a responsible permittee with discharges to the Dominguez Channel Estuary as indicated in the MS4 Permit Attachment K. It should be noted that the table does not imply that compliance can only be achieved and demonstrated via strict attainment of the listed TMDL WLAs. Other compliance pathways (e.g., full diversion or providing treatment of discharges for the 85th percentile 24-hour design storm capture) also are viable options. 2 “Available data” includes all data collected through June 30, 2020 by the Beach Cities WMG. As this date marks the end of the 2019-2020 reporting year, it is the most recent complete year of CIMP monitoring that includes data that has been analyzed, verified, and reported according to the Beach Cities standard for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC). Monitoring data collected after this time has not yet been QA/QC’d in accordance with this protocol, and so has not been used in the revised RAA and EWMP. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 3 May 2021 Table 1. Updated Waterbody Pollutant Combinations – Santa Monica Bay Category Water Body Pollutant – Applicable Condition Reason for Categorization Interim TMDL WLA Final TMDL WLA or Other Target 1: Highest Priority Santa Monica Bay (including SMB Beaches) Bacteria – Wet and Dry Weather SMB Beaches Bacteria TMDL 50% cumulative percentage reduction from total required exceedance day reduction[2] Summer-Dry: Single Sample Allowable Exceedance Days (AEDs) Winter-Dry: Single Sample AEDs Wet - Single Sample AEDs[1] and Geometric Mean targets Trash/Debris – Wet and Dry Weather SMB Debris TMDL Incremental reduction from baseline waste load allocation[3] (6815.6 gals/year) 100% reduction from baseline waste load allocation[3] (6815.6 gals/year) DDTs – Wet and Dry Weather SMB PCBs and DDT TMDL n/a 0.88 g/yr[4] PCBs – Wet and Dry Weather n/a 4.56 g/yr[4] 2: High Priority Mercury– Wet and Dry Weather 303(d) list n/a 0.4 ug/L[5] Arsenic– Wet and Dry Weather n/a 80 ug/L[5] 3: Medium Priority Analysis of monitoring data from outfalls and receiving waters do not currently result in the identification of any Category 3 WBPCs [1] Per the LARWQCB Basin Plan Objective REC1 Water Bodies Limit for Bacteria. Please refer to Beach Cities EWMP Appendix B for allowable exceedance day limits for each subwatershed. [2] Total required exceedance day reduction is defined as the difference between historical exceedance day and the allowable exceedance day for each subwatershed. [3] Baseline WLA is the sum of baseline WLA from Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Torrance. [4] This mass-based WLA presented in the TMDL is applicable for all Los Angeles County MS4 permittees draining to Santa Monica Bay. WLA applicable to Beach Cities WMG is apportioned based on Beach Cities WMG’s tributary area to Santa Monica Bay. [5] California Ocean Plan target. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 4 May 2021 Table 2. Updated Waterbody Pollutant Combinations – Dominguez Channel WMA Category Water Body Pollutant Reason for Categorization WLA/Standard/Target Basis Interim TMDL WLA Final TMDL WLA or Other Target 1: Highest Priority Dominguez Channel Freshwater] Toxicity Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Toxics TMDL Monthly Average 2 TUc 1 TUc Total Copper Wet Weather Single Event 207.51 ug/L 9.7 ug/L 205.5 g/day[3] Total Lead Wet Weather Single Event 122.88 ug/L 42.7 ug/L 906.3 g/day[3] Total Zinc Wet Weather Single Event 898.87 ug/L 69.7 ug/L 1,478.6 g/day[3] Dominguez Channel Estuary Total Copper Wet Weather Single Event[1] Annual Average[2] 220 mg/kg sediment 3.73 ug/L 31.6 mg/kg sediment 2.1 kg/yr[4] Total Lead Wet Weather Single Event[1] Annual Average[2] 510.0 mg/kg sediment 8.52 ug/L 35.8 mg/kg sediment 5.1 kg/yr [4] Total Zinc Wet Weather Single Event[1] Annual Average[2] 789.0 mg/kg sediment 85.6 ug/L 121 mg/kg sediment 25.5 kg/yr[4] Total Cadmium Wet Weather Single Event[1] Annual Average[2] n/a 1.2 mg/kg sediment Total DDTs Wet Weather Single Event[1] Annual Average[2] 1.727 mg/kg sediment 0.00059 ug/L 0.02 g/yr[4] Total PAHs Wet Weather Single Event[1] Annual Average[2] 31.60 mg/kg sediment 0.049 ug/L 0.013 kg/yr[4] Total PCBs Wet Weather Single Event[1] Annual Average[2] 1.490 mg/kg sediment 0.00017 ug/L 0.019 g/yr [4] Torrance Lateral Total Copper Wet Weather Single Event 207.51 ug/L 9.7 ug/L 31.6 mg/kg sediment Total Lead Wet Weather Single Event 122.88 ug/L 42.7 ug/L 35.8 mg/kg sediment Total Zinc Wet Weather Single Event 898.87 ug/L 69.7 ug/L 121 mg/kg sediment App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 5 May 2021 Category Water Body Pollutant Reason for Categorization WLA/Standard/Target Basis Interim TMDL WLA Final TMDL WLA or Other Target 2: High Priority Dominguez Channel (including Freshwater, Estuary, and Torrance Lateral) Indicator Bacteria 303(d) List Exceedance Rate over 30- day Period n/a See Footnote 5 3: Medium Priority Dominguez Channel Freshwater Benzo(a)pyrene CIMP Monitoring California Toxics Rule (CTR) Human Health Standard n/a 0.049 ug/L[6] [1] Basis for water column- or sediment-based concentration target. [2] Basis for mass-based target. [3] Daily MS4 WLA apportioned to Beach Cities WMG draining to the Dominguez Channel Freshwater area. [4] Annual MS4 WLA apportioned to Beach Cities WMG draining to the Dominguez Channel Estuary area. [5] Per the LARWQCB Basin Plan Objective REC1 Water Bodies Limit for Indicator Bacteria, the statistical threshold value of E. coli (320/100 mL) is not to be exceeded by more than 10 percent of the samples collected in a calendar month. [6] The CTR Human Health numeric target is not directly applicable at outfalls but was utilized as an evaluative metric in this case. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 6 May 2021 3. MODEL SELECTION AND OVERVIEW While the original RAA leveraged the strengths of the Structural BMP Prioritization and Analysis Tool (SBPAT) to perform the wet weather modeling analysis, the revised RAA uses the newly-released WMMS 2.0 modeling platform to maintain consistency with the majority of RAAs across Los Angeles County. Developed by LACFCD and publicly released in May 2020, WMMS 2.0 utilizes remote sensing, water quality, and hydrology data collected through 2018 to simulate contaminant loading, runoff volume, and flow rate. WMMS 2.0 contains two major components: a Loading Simulation Program in C++ (LSPC) to determine hydrology and pollutant loading, and a System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis Integration (SUSTAIN) to assist in BMP selection and performance. Detailed descriptions of each model component are provided below. An advantage of using the WMMS 2.0 model is the extensive regional calibration effort that has gone into the recent update of the model. 3.1. WMMS 2.0 LSPC WMMS 2.0 LSPC (version 6.0) is capable of simulating watershed hydrology, sediment erosion and transport, and water quality processes from both upland contributing areas and receiving streams. Long-term, hourly rainfall data and average monthly evapotranspiration values are used along with land use-linked catchment imperviousness, soil properties, and land use-specific pollutant buildup/wash off rates to estimate wet weather runoff volumes and pollutant loading. LSPC utilizes the following spatial and temporal data to conduct the simulation: • Hydrologic response unit (HRU), which is a combination of: o Soils o Land cover o Groundwater recharge potential o Topography o Land use • Hydraulic network (dams, debris basins, spreading grounds, water reclamation plants, storm drains, open channels) • Subwatershed/subbasin • Hourly and spatially interpolated precipitation and evapotranspiration data. Figure 1 illustrates the HRU of the Beach Cities EWMP area, Figure 2 illustrates the hydraulic network, and subwatershed boundary and the weather station coverage for the Beach Cities EWMP area. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 7 May 2021 Figure 1. HRU Overview App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 8 May 2021 Figure 2. Hydraulic Network, Drainage Delineation, and Weather Station Overview App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 9 May 2021 The default 3 WMMS 2.0 LSPC model has been configured, calibrated, and validated through a regional approach against flow and water quality monitoring data collected at all Mass Emission Stations (MES) in Los Angeles County. The following pollutants are included in the downloaded version of the WMMS 2.0 platform: • Total Nitrogen • Total Phosphorus • Total Zinc • Total Lead • Total Copper • Total Cadmium, and • Total Suspended Solids (TSS) The application of this model provides an estimate of the target load reduction (TLR), a numerical expression of the Permit compliance metrics that serves as a basis for confirming, with reasonable assurance, that implementation of the proposed BMPs will result in attainment of the applicable TMDL WLA-based WQBELs in the Permit for Category 1 pollutants, or the Water Quality Objectives for Category 2 and Category 3 pollutants. The subsections below summarize the modifications to the default WMMS 2.0 LSPC model that were used to conduct the revised RAA. 3.1.1. Updating Weather Data The default WMMS 2.0 LSPC model database includes precipitation data up to September 2018. Hourly rainfall data between September 2018 and June 2020 from Los Angeles County operated Automatic Local Evaluation in Real Time (ALERT) rain gauges were requested and amended to the model database in accordance with the default WMMS 2.0 rain gauge coverage assignment. 3.1.2. Adding Fecal Indicator Bacteria as a Modeled Constituent In the original Beach Cities EWMP RAA, fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) compliance demonstration (where the TMDL permit limits are expressed in exceedance days) was performed via using load reductions as the modeled surrogate compliance metric. To maintain consistency with the LARWQCB Basin Plan, fecal coliform 4 was used as the 3 The term “default” refers to the “as-downloaded” model released in May 2020. 4 While the LARWQCB Basin Plan established water quality objectives of total coliform, fecal coliform and enterococcus for marine water, historic monitoring data for a representative beach that demonstrated fecal coliform loads (discharged from the watershed outlets) were significantly correlated with total App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 10 May 2021 representative FIB for marine waters, and E. coli was used as the FIB for freshwaters. Because none of the default constituents in WMMS 2.0 LSPC model can be used as surrogate pollutants for FIB, a representative FIB had to be added to the model. For the Santa Monica Bay LSPC model, fecal coliform was used, with model input parameters calibrated using fecal coliform monitoring data collected at Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria (SMBBB) TMDL Compliance Monitoring Locations (CMLs) within the Beach Cities EWMP area. For the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel LSPC model, E. coli was used, with model input parameters calibrated using E. coli monitoring data collected at outfall monitoring locations draining to Dominguez Channel. 3.1.3. Use of Surrogate Pollutants Pollutant load rate and concentration for WBPCs involving the seven default WMMS 2.0 LSPC model pollutants and the added FIB were obtained from the WMMS 2.0 LSPC output files directly. A subset of the directly modeled pollutants was used as surrogate pollutants to establish pollutant loading and concentration of pollutants not directly modeled in the WMMS 2.0 LSPC model. Details on surrogate pollutant selection and assignment in the Santa Monic Bay and Dominguez Channel watersheds are presented in Section 6.1 and 6.2, respectively. 3.1.4. Model Calibration and Validation The default WMMS 2.0 LSPC model is calibrated on a regional basis using data through September 2018. This model was further calibrated and validated using Beach Cities CIMP monitoring data collected up to June 30, 2020 to best reflect the baseline hydrology and water quality conditions within the Beach Cities EWMP area. This date was selected as it marks the most-recently complete CIMP annual reporting year, and therefore is inclusive of the latest available data that have been properly QC’d by the Beach Cities WMG. Detailed information on the model calibration can be found in Section 4. 3.1.5. Revising LSPC Sub-Basin Boundaries Since the default LSPC subwatershed boundaries were developed at a regional scale and covers the entire Los Angeles Basin, they were found to contain some minor inaccuracies at the finer spatial resolution used for the RAA. As part of the revised RAA process, the subwatershed boundaries were refined to more accurately reflect the drainage boundaries of the Beach Cities EWMP WMA. observed wet weather exceedance days for all FIBs for marine water. Hence, fecal coliform was selected as the representative FIB for marine water. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 11 May 2021 3.2. WMMS 2.0 SUSTAIN Utilizing hourly hydrograph and pollutograph outputs from LSPC, SUSTAIN (version 2.1) provides estimates of water balance such as volumes: evapotranspired, diverted, captured, treated, and/or released by various BMPs, as well as a conceptually optimal spatial distribution based on cost effectiveness to achieve TLR goals. WMMS 2.0 SUSTAIN also includes a batch-processing framework to inform selection, configuration, and placement of BMPs throughout a watershed based on defined evaluation criteria, such as cost and TLR. The default WMMS 2.0 SUSTAIN model supports estimated performance of BMPs summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Default BMPs Modeled in SUSTAIN BMP Type Performance Type Distributed BMP Bioretention/biofiltration (with optional underdrain) Volume reduction and flow through treatment Pervious pavement Volume reduction and flow through treatment Cistern/Rain barrel Volume reduction Drywell Volume reduction Proprietary treatment unit Flow through treatment Regional BMP Infiltration gallery Volume reduction Retention/detention basin Volume reduction and flow through treatment Constructed wetland Volume reduction and flow through treatment Sewer diversion Volume reduction Regional treatment facility Flow through treatment For the revised RAA, WMMS 2.0 SUSTAIN was used to estimate the performance of existing and proposed distributed and regional BMPs, thereby assuring that an effective and suitable suite of stormwater management BMPs is implemented to meet applicable interim and final TLR goals. This approach is therefore used to demonstrate a reasonable assurance of compliance for all modeled WBPCs. Details on modeled BMPs in the Beach Cities EWMPs are presented in Section 8.3. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 12 May 2021 4. RAA APPROACH Consistent with the original Beach Cities EWMP RAA, the revised RAA was performed per analysis region. An analysis region is defined by one of the following conditions: 1. A subwatershed tributary to a shoreline CML (e.g. SMB-5-01) 2. A subwatershed tributary to the open beach between two CMLs (SMB-03_04) 3. A subwatershed tributary to an EWMP area outlet (e.g. DC-N-MB) 4. A subwatershed to an existing flood control basin or sump (e.g. Wylie Basin) As shown in Figure 3, there are 20 analysis regions in the Santa Monica Bay WMA and four in the Dominguez Channel WMA. Among the four Dominguez Channel WMA analysis regions, DC-N-MB, DC-N-RB and DC-S are tributary to Dominguez Freshwater. DC-TL is tributary to Dominguez Channel Estuary via Torrance Lateral. The Machado Lake Watershed is being addressed in a separate EWMP/RAA by the City of Torrance. Figure 3. Analysis Region Overview App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 13 May 2021 4.1. Wet Weather RAA Approach The approach for representing wet weather flows and pollutant management for the RAA, including model determination and calibration, data inputs, critical condition selection, calibration performance criteria, and output types, have all been selected for consistency with the RAA Guidance Document (LARWQCB, 2014b), as well as functionality of WMMS 2.0. The process for the wet weather RAA included the following steps and were applied to the wet weather RAA for both Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) WMA. 1. Identify current WBPC list, including all quantifiable parameters requiring model simulation. 2. Revise, as needed, the contributing MS4 service areas to represent the WMA (e.g., remove lands or areas not required to be analyzed and adjust boundaries to match at a more detailed scale). This includes various full 85th percentile 24-hour storm capture basins under existing and proposed conditions (Wylie Basin, Torrance Basins Enhancement and Expansion Project, Beach Cities Green Streets Project), land owned and operated by Caltrans, and facilities operating under their own NPDES permit (e.g., the Torrance Refinery). 3. For analysis regions draining to a CML, review the Beach Cities CIMP and SMBBB TMDL monitoring data and assess if the analysis region is achieving compliance based on water quality history. For these analysis regions, no RAA is needed; compliance is already demonstrated based on monitoring data. 4. Perform hydrologic and water quality calibration on the LSPC model using Beach Cities CIMP outfall monitoring data. 5. Identify WBPC-specific critical condition. 6. Develop interim and final TLRs for identified WBPCs during the respective critical condition. 7. Identify the following with respect to structural and non-structural BMPs: a. Significant variations to BMPs accounted for in the original Beach Cities EWMP (e.g., differences in LID implementation levels) b. New BMPs that have been implemented since 2014 and were not accounted for in the original EWMP c. New BMPs that are planned for implementation and were not accounted for in the original EWMP. 8. Evaluate the pollutant load reductions of existing and proposed BMPs. 9. Compare these estimates with the final TLRs. 10. Revise the BMP implementation scenarios until all final TLRs are met, thereby reasonably assuring compliance with wet weather permit goals. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 14 May 2021 4.2. Dry Weather RAA Approach Consistent with the original Beach Cities EWMP RAA, a semi-quantitative approach was implemented to perform the dry weather RAA and demonstrate reasonable assurance of meeting applicable permit goals. Within the Santa Monica Bay WMA, low flow diversions (to the sanitary sewer) have been implemented successfully along the coast to effectively divert significant non- stormwater discharges away from discharging to the ocean. Additionally, for smaller outfalls, due in part to setbacks from the shoreline, non-stormwater MS4 infiltrates at the open beaches, preventing discharges from reaching the ocean. The effectiveness of these measures and outfall conditions has been consistently confirmed through monitoring. Therefore, compliance with TMDL objectives during dry weather is demonstrated for the Beach Cities Santa Monica Bay WMA via the no discharge permit compliance pathway. Within the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA, the dry weather RAA is only required for Category 2 and 3 WBPCs for the Dominguez Channel freshwater and Torrance Lateral and for Category 1 WBPC for the Dominguez Channel estuary. The approach outlined in Figure 4 was utilized to perform the dry weather RAA for the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA. In subwatersheds containing proposed BMPs that address wet weather pollutants, it was assumed that dry weather flows would be completely captured and retained by these projects as well and result in no dry weather discharge to the Dominguez Channel. Figure 4. Dry Weather RAA Process App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 15 May 2021 5. MODEL CALIBRATION AND VALIDATION The default WMMS 2.0 LSPC watershed model has been configured, calibrated, and validated by LACFCD through a regional approach against flow and water quality monitoring data collected at all Los Angeles County Mass Emission Stations (MES) between water years 2008 and 2018 (LACFCD, 2020a). Geosyntec further calibrated the model using Beach Cities CIMP wet weather outfall flow and water quality data collected through June 2020. The calibrated Beach Cities LSPC model is used as the foundation for performing the wet weather RAA. Figure 5 shows CIMP monitoring locations utilized for the Beach Cities LSPC watershed model calibration and validation. Figure 5. Locations of Monitoring Stations Utilized for Calibration and Validation App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 16 May 2021 Calibrations were performed to meet specifications of the RAA Guidelines (LARWQCB, 2014b), which are summarized in Table 4 below. Consistent with the regional WMMS 2.0 calibration process, percent bias (PBIAS) is the primary statistic used to evaluate agreement between modeled-predicted and observed data. PBIAS quantifies systematic over- or under-prediction. Low values of PBIAS indicate better fit and predictive capability of the model. The lower bound of the “Fair” threshold is considered the minimum acceptable criteria for the model calibration process. If a “Fair” threshold is not achieved during the model validation process, additional model adjustments are made to attain the threshold at the validation site. If such effort is not successful, additional investigations will be performed to examine the modeled and monitored data at the validation site to justify the calibration effort. Table 4. Calibration Metrics Category Percent Difference Between Model-Predicated and Observed Data (PBIAS) Very Good Good Fair Hydrology / Flow ±0 – 10% ≥ ±10% - 15% ≥ ±15% - 25% Sediment ±0 – 20% ≥ ±20% - 30% ≥ ±30% - 40% Water Quality ±0 – 15% ≥ ±15% - 25% ≥ ±25% - 35% Pesticides / Toxics ±0 – 20% ≥ ±20% - 30% ≥ ±30% - 40% Details of the calibration and validation approach and results are presented in the following subsections. 5.1. Hydrologic Calibration The objective of hydrologic calibration is to compare observed and model-predicted wet weather flow rates at monitoring sites and demonstrate a PBIAS of 25% or less. While continuous flow data is collected at all outfall monitoring sites, the following outfall monitoring sites were excluded from the hydrologic calibration. Reasons for exclusion are also provided: • OF-BCEG-01 and OF-BCEG-04a: Drainage areas to these monitoring sites includes large, manually controlled flood control detention basins. Since the objective of the hydrology calibration is to determine modeling parameters that will be globally applied to the entire Beach Cities EWMP area, monitoring data collected at monitoring sites with existing regional stormwater BMPs represent controlled discharges and were therefore excluded. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 17 May 2021 • OF-BCEG-02: the monitoring site is consistently influenced by tidal impacts, such that the collected flow data do not accurately represent MS4 discharges coming from the upstream drainage area. Therefore, this site was excluded from calibration. • OF-BCEG-06: Initial comparison between monitored and uncalibrated modeled flow rates revealed that that the monitored flow was consistently less than the modeled flow data by an order of magnitude. Such discrepancy was not observed in other outfalls. The Beach Cities WMG plans to perform further investigation to assess such discrepancy as part of the CIMP. Although there’s currently no reason to believe the flow data collected at this site is inaccurate, data from the outfall monitoring site was excluded from the current hydrologic analyses and calibration to avoid overly reducing runoff generation in the LSPC model. After screening out aberrant outfall monitoring and locations, a site in the Santa Monica Bay WMA was determined to have acceptable flow monitoring data available for hydrologic calibration. A combined hydrologic calibration effort was then conducted to utilize wet weather flow monitoring data collected at OF-BCEG-03 and OF-BCEG-05 to determine modeling parameters applicable to both the Beach Cities Santa Monica Bay and Dominguez Channel LSPC models. Wet weather flow monitoring collected at OF- BCEG-07 was used to validate the calibration effort. In maintaining consistency with the WMMS 2.0 model regional calibration process, the hydrologic calibration required the evaluation of subsurface storage, infiltration, and groundwater recession modeling parameters. The calibration was performed by iteratively applying multipliers to HRU specific modeling parameters. The resulting hydrology parameters ranges are presented in Table 5 alongside with default value ranges from the WMMS 2.0 LSPC model database and guidance. Table 5. Summary of Calibrated Hydrology Modeling Parameters Parameter[1] Description Unit Beach Cities Model Values INFILT Index to Infiltration Capacity in/hr 0.23-4.0 AGWRC Base groundwater recession none 0.95-0.99 CEPSC Interception storage capacity inches 0.2-0.75 [1] For hydrologic parameters not listed in the table, the default WMMS 2.0 LSPC model values were used without modification. Table 6 presents a summary of results for hydrology calibration. PBIAS calculations were based on comparison of modeled and observed daily flow at each outfall monitoring site. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 18 May 2021 For the PBIAS metric, modeled flows achieved “Very good” agreement with observed data at OF-BCEG-05 and OF-BCEG-07, and achieved “Fair” agreement with observation at OF-BCEG-03 according to the Regional Board RAA Guidance metric summarized in Table 4. Table 6. Model Performance Summary - Hydrology Calibration Metrics Comparison Locations OF- BCEG-03 OF- BCEG-05 OF- BCEG-07 PBIAS (%) 16.9 -0.2 2.6 To further evaluate the temporal trends of the hydrology calibration, comparisons between modeled and observed monthly flows were evaluated by examining the time series plots and the average monthly flows between November 2016 and June 2020. The resultant plots were shown in Figure 6 through Figure 8. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 19 May 2021 Figure 6. Flow Comparison at OF-BCEG-03 App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 20 May 2021 Figure 7. Flow Comparison at OF-BCEG-05 App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 21 May 2021 Figure 8. Flow Comparison at OF-BCEG-07 App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 22 May 2021 5.2. Water Quality Calibration The RAA Guidelines require water quality calibration based on available monitoring data from each analysis region over the most recent 10 years (LARWQCB, 2014). The default WMMS 2.0 LSPC watershed model has been regionally calibrated and validated using data collected at Los Angeles County MES and CIMP receiving water monitoring stations throughout the County between water year 2008 and 2018. Building upon the regional calibration and validation efforts, Geosyntec further calibrated the LSPC model using water quality data collected at the Beach Cities CIMP outfall monitoring locations shown in Figure 5. Modeling was completed for the following constituents: • Fecal Coliform (For the Santa Monica Bay model only) • E. coli (For the Dominguez Channel model only) • Total Suspended Solids (TSS), which served as a surrogate for numerous other WBPCs • Metals – Total copper, total lead, total zinc, and total cadmium The results of the modeling are discussed in the following subsections. As discussed in Section 3.1.2, FIB representation was added to the WMMS 2.0 LSPC model to demonstrate compliance to TMDL permit limits that are expressed in exceedance days. HRU-specific land use bacteria EMCs from WMMS 1.0 were adopted as the starting point of the calibration. The next step in the calibration process was an iterative application of multipliers to EMCs across all HRUs. For the Santa Monica Bay watershed model, the EMCs were calibrated and validated against wet weather fecal coliform monitoring data collected at the SMBBB CMLs SMB-5-02 and SMB-6-01, respectively. These sites are typically sampled five days a week throughout the year, including wet weather, providing the most wet weather data coverage. For the Dominguez Channel model, the FIB modeling parameters were calibrated and validated against E. coli monitoring data collected at outfall sites OF-BCEG-07 and OF-BCEG -05, respectively. OF-BCEG-07 was used as the calibration site because it had more sampled data points (12 events) compared to OF-BCEG-05 (6 events). The calibrated range of parameters are summarized in Table 7. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 23 May 2021 Table 7. Summary of Calibrated FIB Modeling Parameters Parameter Description Units Santa Monica Bay Model Values (Fecal Coliform) Dominguez Channel Model Values (E. coli) SOQC Concentration of constituent in surface outflow MPN/ 100mL 900 – 81,900 1,300 – 118,300 IOQC Concentration of constituent in interflow outflow MPN /100mL 900 – 81,900 1,300 – 118,300 Although TSS is not a pollutant of concern for the Beach Cities WMG, it is an important driver for sediment-associated pollutant simulation within LSPC. In addition, TSS loads are used as a surrogate for organic pollutants of concern that are not modeled directly in LSPC (e.g., benzo[a]pyrene, total chlordane). TSS calibration was performed by iteratively applying multipliers to HRU-specific parameter associated with sediment load buildup on the land surface. The range of calibrated buildup is summarized in Table 8. TSS was not modeled (and hence not calibrated) in the Santa Monica Bay LSPC model as there are no WBPCs that are sediment-associated in the watershed. For the Dominguez Channel watershed model, the TSS modeling parameters were calibrated and validated against TSS monitoring data collected at outfall sites OF-BCEG-07 and OF-BCEG-05, respectively. Table 8. Summary of Calibrated Sediment Loading Parameters Parameter[1] Description Units Beach Cities Model Values ACCSDP Rate at which solids accumulate on the land surface lb/acre/day 0 – 0.002 Calibration for metals was performed by iteratively applying HRU specific multipliers to LSPC model parameters associated with metal potency factors in order to maintain the same relative ratios among HRUs determined in the regionally calibrated WMMS 2.0 LSPC model. The calibration results are summarized in Table 9. No metals were modeled (and hence were not calibrated) in the Santa Monica Bay model as monitoring data demonstrates that there are no significant MS4-generated metal WBPCs. For the Dominguez Channel watershed model, metal-related modeling parameters were calibrated and validated against monitoring data collected at outfalls OF- BCEG-07 and OF-BCEG -05, respectively. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 24 May 2021 Table 9. Summary of Calibrated Pollutant Loading Parameters Pollutant Parameter Name Description Units Beach Cities Model Values Total Copper POTFW Pollutant wash-off potency factor per mass of sediment lb/ton 0-1.5 POTFS Pollutant scour potency factor per mass of sediment lb/ton 0-1.9 Total Lead POTFW Pollutant wash-off potency factor per mass of sediment lb/ton 0-0.28 POTFS Pollutant scour potency factor per mass of sediment lb/ton 0-0.28 Total Zinc POTFW Pollutant wash-off potency factor per mass of sediment lb/ton 0-13.8 POTFS Pollutant scour potency factor per mass of sediment lb/ton 0-13.8 Total Cadmium POTFW Pollutant wash-off potency factor per mass of sediment lb/ton 0.001- 0.025 POTFS Pollutant scour potency factor per mass of sediment lb/ton 0.001- 0.025 Table 10 presents a summary of results for water quality calibration for all WBPCs. Calculations of PBIAS were based on a comparison of modeled and observed daily average concentration at each outfall monitoring site. To further evaluate the temporal trends of the water quality calibration, comparisons between modeled and observed pollutant concentration were evaluated examining the time series plots. An example of the time series plots for total zinc concentration was shown in Figure 9. The remaining time series plots are included in Attachment D.1. In reference to the RAA Guideline calibration metrics summarized in Table 4, modeled pollutant concentrations achieved “Fair”, “Good”, or “Very Good” agreement with observed data at all comparison sites. It should be noted that the TSS concentration measured at OF-BCEG-05 on 1/9/2018 was deemed as an outlier due to noted laboratory QA/QC flags and was therefore excluded from the model calibration process. Table 10. Water Quality Model Calibration Summary Calibration Metric Constituent Group Santa Monica Bay Model Dominguez Channel Model SMB-5-2 SMB-6-1 OF-BCEG- 05 OF-BCEG- 07 PBIAS (%) Indicator Bacteria[2] 28.4 -24.3 -3 +7 TSS n/a[1] n/a[1] -25 +23 App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 25 May 2021 Calibration Metric Constituent Group Santa Monica Bay Model Dominguez Channel Model SMB-5-2 SMB-6-1 OF-BCEG- 05 OF-BCEG- 07 Total Copper n/a[1] n/a[1] -21 +35 Total Lead n/a[1] n/a[1] +23 +18 Total Zinc n/a[1] n/a[1] -11 +10 Total Cadmium n/a[1] n/a[1] +28 +35 [1] No WBPCs associated with this constituent in Santa Monica Bay watershed. [2] Fecal coliform for the Santa Monica Bay model; E. coli for the Dominguez Channel model. Figure 9. Example Concentration Comparison Plot (Total Zinc) App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 26 May 2021 6. CRITICAL CONDITION DEFINITION 6.1. Santa Monica Bay WMA 6.1.1. Bacteria (Fecal Coliform) Consistent with the critical condition definition in the Wet Weather SMBBB TMDL and the Regional Board RAA Guidance (LARWQCB, 2014b), the Santa Monica Bay RAA for bacteria was completed utilizing the 90th percentile wet year. Water Year 2011 5 was previously identified for all watersheds in Los Angeles County using WMMS 2.0 hydrologic analysis of the most recent 10-years of rainfall data to define the 90th percentile representative “water year” (LACFCD, 2020c). Water Year 2011 then served as the basis for determination of wet weather bacteria critical condition in the Beach Cities Santa Monica Bay WMA. 6.2. Dominguez Channel WMA 6.2.1. Indicator Bacteria (E. coli) Similar to all existing Los Angeles region bacteria TMDLs for rivers, as well as the Regional Board RAA Guidance (LARWQCB, 2014b), the Dominguez Channel RAA for bacteria used the 90th percentile wet year. As discussed in Section 6.1.1, the 90th percentile wet year timeframe was identified to be Water Year 2011 for the Dominguez Channel WMA (LACFCD, 2020c). 6.2.2. Metals and Organic Pollutants According to the Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Toxics TMDL (herein referred as the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL), the critical condition for metals and organic pollutants discharging to Dominguez Channel and Torrance Lateral were defined as the 90th percentile daily pollutant load. The calibrated Beach Cities Dominguez Channel LSPC watershed model was used to compute the daily metals and TSS loads 6 on wet days between 2008 and 2018. The daily loads were calculated and ranked for each pollutant, with the 90th percentile daily load (summarized in Table 11) selected as the defining condition representing the required TLR that must be achieved. 5 October 2010 to September 2011 6 Since organic pollutants cannot be modeled directly in WMMS 2.0, TSS is used as a surrogate to calculate the 90th pollutant load day for organic pollutants App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 27 May 2021 Table 11. Dominguez Channel WMA 90th Percentile Daily Load Summary Analysis Region (Receiving Water) Pollutant 90th Percentile Load Load Unit 90th Percentile Load Day Runoff Volume During the 90th Percentile Load Day (ac-ft) DC-N-MB (Dominguez Channel Freshwater) TSS 1,904 lb/day 3/17/2012 5.5 Total Copper 1.3 lb/day 12/12/2011 8.4 Total Lead 0.2 lb/day 12/12/2011 8.4 Total Zinc 6.9 lb/day 12/12/2011 8.4 DC-N-RB (Dominguez Channel Freshwater) TSS 5,936 lb/day 10/30/2010 19.2 Total Copper 4.1 lb/day 12/17/2010 30.1 Total Lead 0.6 lb/day 12/17/2010 30.1 Total Zinc 22.0 lb/day 12/17/2010 30.1 DC-S (Dominguez Channel Freshwater) TSS 7,706 lb/day 11/30/2012 34.3 Total Copper 4.0 lb/day 11/6/2011 35.4 Total Lead 0.5 lb/day 11/6/2011 35.4 Total Zinc 18.4 lb/day 11/30/2012 34.3 DC-TL (Torrance Lateral and Dominguez Channel Estuary[1]) TSS 15,299 lb/day 4/11/2012 50.8 Total Cadmium[2] 0.15 lb/day 1/21/2012 40.6 Total Copper 11.5 lb/day 1/21/2012 40.6 Total Lead 1.6 lb/day 1/21/2012 40.6 Total Zinc 65.1 lb/day 1/21/2012 40.6 [1] DC-TL drains to Dominguez Channel Estuary via Torrance Lateral. [1]Cadmium is a pollutant of concern for Dominguez Channel Estuary only. However analysis region DC-TL discharges to the Dominguez Channel Estuary and is shown in the TMDL for this WMA. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 28 May 2021 7. TARGET LOAD REDUCTIONS The following subsection documents the development of wet weather TLRs for the Beach Cities EWMP area. The dry weather RAA approach described in Section 4.2 does not require TLRs. See Section 10 for the dry weather RAA result. 7.1. Santa Monica Bay WMA Wet weather pollutants of concern for the Santa Monica Bay WMA include fecal coliform, PCBs, DDT, mercury, arsenic, trash, and marine debris. The following sections describe the TLR development for each pollutant, or the justifications on why a modeled TLR is not required to demonstrate reasonable assurance of compliance. 7.1.1. Bacteria (Fecal Coliform) Utilizing the calibrated Beach Cities Santa Monica Bay LSPC watershed model, the bacteria TLR was established by following the same modeling approach developed in the original Beach Cities EWMP, which accounted for site-specific monitoring data at each shoreline CML. As discussed in Section 3.1.2, the modeling methodology correlates the bacteria load to the expected annual bacteria exceedance days, which is the Permit’s WQBEL expression for the SMBBB TMDL. The fecal coliform TLR was estimated by modeling a hypothetical detention basin at each analysis region outlet. As the first step in this process, the allowable discharge days for each analysis region was calculated as the TMDL-specified allowable exceedance days, divided by the 10-year wet weather exceedance rate at the shoreline CML. This approach makes use of site specific wet weather beach bacteria monitoring data to determine the number of discharge days that result in the number of allowable exceedance days at the shoreline. For analysis regions with anti-degradation-based allowable exceedance days, a target load reduction of zero is assumed. This approach is consistent with the SMBBB TMDL which acknowledges that historic bacteria exceedance rates for each of these analysis regions are lower than that of the reference beach, on average, and therefore no additional load reduction is required. This assumption applies for seven of the 11 total SMBBB TMDL CMLs in Beach Cities Santa Monica Bay WMA – i.e., SMB-5-1, SMB- 5-3, SMB-5-4, SMB-5-5, SMB-6-2, SMB-6-5, and SMB-6-6. Historic wet weather monitoring data at these sampling locations through TMDL Year 2019 confirm this understanding, as the long-term exceedance rate at all seven sites varies between 7% and 24%. This is below the long-term wet weather exceedance rate at the reference beach (26%) allowing the conclusion that no additional load reduction is required at these locations. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 29 May 2021 For analysis regions without anti-degradation-based allowable exceedance days, a hypothetical basin was iteratively sized until discharge frequency at the outfall is less than or equal to the allowable exceedance days at that monitoring location. Each hypothetical downstream retention BMP included a diversion with a calculated hydraulic capacity that provides full capture of flows and results in a model-derived bypass frequency (or number of discharge days) for Water Year 2011 that achieves the allowable exceedance day criteria. Each diversion for these conceptual BMPs was separately modeled to determine the hydraulic capacity that results in full capture of discharge. The net load reduction resulting from this conceptual BMP scenario (i.e., baseline analysis region load minus the analysis region load with the diversion system and full capture retention BMP in place) for Water Year 2011 is the TLR. For the RAA, reasonable assurance of compliance is achieved when modeled load reductions associated with proposed BMPs is greater than or equal to the TLR for each analysis region. In summary, the following approach was implemented to calculate a TLR for each SMB modeled analysis region without anti-degradation-based allowable exceedance days: 1. Each analysis region that does not currently comply with applicable TMDL limits was modeled in LSPC for the 90th percentile wet year (Water Year 2011). 2. The existing, baseline condition (i.e., without an outlet retention BMP) was modeled for each analysis region, resulting in a determination of the baseline fecal coliform load for the 90th percentile water year (baseline load). 3. The 10-year historical wet weather exceedance percentage was determined by dividing the total number of wet weather exceedance days by the total number of discharge days in which wet weather was sampled. 4. The allowable number of discharge days for each analysis region was calculated by dividing the total number of allowable exceedance days (17, per the TMDL) by the exceedance percentage calculated in Step 3. 5. An in-stream diversion to a large hypothetical retention BMP at the outlet of each analysis region was iteratively sized to reduce the number of discharge days to be less than or equal to the allowable discharge days determined in Step 4. 6. Each diversion and hypothetical retention BMP was then modeled to produce a mean fecal coliform load for the 90th percentile year (allowed load). 7. For each analysis region, the difference between the baseline load (Step 2) and the allowed load (Step 6) resulted in a TLR for the 90th percentile year, which was the target load reduction required to meet the 17 allowable TMDL exceedance days for wet weather. 8. A TLR-equivalent 24-hour runoff management volume was estimated as the maximum daily diverted volume during the critical condition (i.e. throughout the modeled year). Both load-based TLR and the equivalent 24-hour runoff App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 30 May 2021 management volume are considered eligible Beach Cities EWMP compliance metrics. 7.1.2. Pesticides and PCBs Consistent with the original EWMP as well as the SMB PCBs and DDT TMDL, the WLAs for the entire Santa Monica Bay WMA were set equal to the existing estimates of annual loads for DDT and PCBs. Monitoring data collected as part of the Beach Cities CIMP demonstrate that discharges of PCBs and DDTs from the Beach Cities Beach Cities EWMP area into Santa Monica Bay are below the TMDL limits (Beach Cities WMG, 2020). Therefore, the current required additional load reduction to meet TMDL WLAs is zero for PCBs and DDTs, and no BMP modeling analysis is required to demonstrate compliance. For more information, see the Source Assessment portion of the revised Beach Cities EWMP, Appendix B. 7.1.3. Mercury and Arsenic Mercury and arsenic were recently added to the 303(d) list for Santa Monica Bay WMA. However, CIMP monitoring data collected by the Beach Cities to date demonstrate that outfall concentrations were consistently below the Ocean Plan objectives for these parameters. As a result, no modeling was conducted for mercury or arsenic as part of the revised RAA. For more information, see the Source Assessment portion of the revised Beach Cities EWMP, Appendix B. 7.1.4. Trash and Marine Debris Compliance with the SMB Debris TMDL will be met through a phased retrofit of full- capture or partial capture systems throughout the Beach Cities Santa Monica Bay WMA in combination with institutional measures (e.g., street sweeping with posted no-parking on street sweeping days) to meet each interim and final compliance deadline. Hence, these constituents do not require a TLR to be calculated and were not modeled as part of the revised RAA. 7.1.5. Final Wet Weather TLR Summary for Santa Monica Bay TLRs for each analysis region draining to a Santa Monica Bay CML are listed in Table 12. Consistent with the original EWMP, non-zero TLRs were only identified in two SMB analysis regions – SMB-5-02 and SMB-6-01. Based on the number of anti-degradation sites within the Beach Cities Santa Monica Bay WMA, coupled with the water quality history at the other sites, these results are appropriate. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 31 May 2021 Table 12. Santa Monica Bay WMA Wet Weather TLR Analysis Region Critical Condition Baseline Load (1012 MPN/ year) Final Target Load Reduction Absolute (1012 MPN/ year) % of Baseline Load TLR Equivalent 24- Hour Management Volume (ac-ft) SMB-5-1 90th percentile water year 1.7 Anti-Degradation 0% 0 SMB-5-2 111.9 59.0 53% 67.1 SMB-5-3 7.5 Anti-Degradation 0% 0 SMB-5-4 2.6 Anti-Degradation 0% 0 SMB-5-5 39.0 Anti-Degradation 0% 0 SMB-6-1 112.1 54.7 49% 51.2 SMB-6-2 16.2 Anti-Degradation 0% 0 SMB-6-3 10.0 CIMP data shows compliance with final allowable exceedance days. Hence no RAA required to demonstrate compliance. SMB-6-4 4.1 SMB-6-5 15.3 Anti-Degradation 0% 0 SMB-6-6 1.2 Anti-Degradation 0% 0 7.2. Dominguez Channel WMA Wet weather pollutants of concern in the Dominguez Channel WMA include toxicity, total copper, total lead, total zinc, indicator bacteria, and benzo(a)pyrene. Total PCBs, total DDTs, total cadmium, and total PAHs are additional WBPCs for Beach Cities EWMP area tributary to Torrance Lateral and Dominguez Channel Estuary 7. While the default WMMS 2.0 LSPC model represents a subset of these WBPCs, TLRs and target loads for the other WBPCs were established using surrogate pollutants in order to comply with the State Board’s requirement to demonstrate reasonable assurance of attainment of all applicable water quality targets (SWRCB, 2020). 7.2.1. Metals Total copper, total lead, and total zinc are Category 1 WBPCs in the Dominguez Channel WMA due to the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL . Total cadmium is an additional Category 1 WBPCs in Dominguez Channel Estuary due to the Toxics TMDL. Zero TLRs were set for total lead since monitoring data from contributing outfalls have consistently met the respective numeric targets. 7 For the Beach Cities EWMP area, analysis region DC-TL drains to Dominguez Channel Estuary via Torrance Lateral. No other Beach Cities EWMP area drains to the Dominguez Channel Estuary or the Torrance Lateral. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 32 May 2021 Per the MS4 Permit, permittees shall be deemed TMDL compliant with meeting total copper, total lead and total zinc WLAs if loads are less than the allocation when using one of the following calculations: 1. For analysis regions tributary to Dominguez Channel freshwater and Torrance Lateral - Daily loading of pollutants calculated as the water-column WQBEL concentration 8 multiplied by the daily flow volume during the 90th percentile loading day. The TMDL water-column WQBELs in the TMDL are based on California Toxics Rule (CTR) aquatic life criteria maximum concentration criteria. 2. For analysis regions tributary to Dominguez Channel freshwater - Daily mass based WLA calculated as the daily mass-based MS4 WLA to Dominguez Channel freshwater apportioned to Beach Cities WMG tributary area. 3. For analysis region(s) tributary to Torrance Lateral - Daily loading of pollutants calculated as the sediment-column WQBEL concentration multiplied by the daily TSS load during the 90th percentile loading day. As such, the method that resulted in the least restrictive daily loading of pollutants was used to determine the allowable load in TLR calculations. According to the Beach CIMP outfall data, the Beach Cities WMG has been meeting all the applicable interim MS4 WLAs for total copper, total lead and total zinc. Hence, zero interim TLRs were assumed. For total cadmium, the final MS4 WLA in the TMDL is expressed as the daily loading of pollutants calculated as the sediment based WQBEL multiplied by the daily sediment load during the 90th percentile load day. The TMDL WQBEL is based on the sediment numeric targets in the Screening Quick Reference Tables (SQuiRTs) developed by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The following approach was implemented to calculate a TLR for each metal in the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA: 1. The analysis region was modeled in LSPC for the 90th percentile load day defined in Table 11 to obtain the baseline pollutant load. 2. The allowable load was calculated using the applicable metal TMDL WLA. For pollutants with multiple WLAs, the WLA that resulted in the least restrictive allowable load was selected for calculation of the TLR. 8 The Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL is currently being reconsidered and may introduce the concept of site-specific water-effect ratios for copper and lead, which have been adopted in other freshwater metal TMDLs in the Los Angeles Region. The adoption of site-specific water-effect ratios may result in significant deviation from the current WQBELs, requiring an update to the Beach Cities EWMP. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 33 May 2021 3. The difference between the baseline load (Step 1) and the allowable load (Step 2) determined the absolute TLR for the 90th percentile load day, the load reduction required to meet the TMDL WLA. A percentage TLR was also calculated by dividing the absolute TLR by the baseline pollutant load. 4. The TLR equivalent 24-hour volume was calculated as the average daily runoff volume multiplied by the percentage TLR. 7.2.2. Pesticides, Organics, and PCBs Total DDTs, total PCBs, benzo[a]pyrene and total PAHs are Category 1 WBPCs in Dominguez Channel Estuary due to the Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL. Benzo[a]pyrene is a Category 3 WBPC for Beach Cities WMA tributary to the Dominguez Channel freshwater due to CIMP monitoring results indicating potential contribution towards water quality standard exceedances in the estuary. Zero TLRs were set for total DDTs, total PCBs and total PAHs since the Beach Cities WMG has continuously met the respective numeric targets according to Beach Cities CIMP outfall monitoring data. When representing Benzo[a]pyrene and total PAHs for the Dominguez Channel Estuary and Benzo[a]pyrene for the Dominguez Channel freshwater segments, these constituents cannot be modeled directly in WMMS 2.0 LSPC. Instead, TSS was modeled and used as a surrogate to compute TLR for these organic pollutants. For representing benzo[a]pyrene contributions to the Dominguez Channel freshwater segments, daily loading was calculated as the TMDL water-column WQBELs multiplied by the daily flow volume during the 90th percentile TSS loading day. For representing Benzo[a]pyrene and total PAH contributions to the Dominguez Channel Estuary, the final MS4 WLA in the Permit were expressed as the daily loading of pollutants calculated as the marine sediment-based WQBEL multiplied by the average daily sediment load. The following approach was implemented to calculate a TLR for each pesticide or PCB in the Dominguez Channel portion of the Beach Cities WMA: 1. The analysis region was modeled in LSPC for the 90th percentile TSS load day as defined in Table 11 to obtain the baseline TSS load 2. Particulate strength (pollutant-to-TSS ratio) for Benzo[a]pyrene and total PAHs were calculated using paired wet weather monitoring data (e.g. pollutant concentration and TSS concentration from the same sample) collected at outfall monitoring locations in the Dominguez Channel watershed (OF-BCEG-05, OF- BCEG-06, and OF-BCEG-07). 3. The baseline pollutant load was computed by multiplying the baseline TSS load and the organic pollutant particulate strength. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 34 May 2021 4. The allowable load was calculated using applicable TMDL WLAs. 5. The difference between the baseline load and the allowable load resulted in a TLR for the 90th percentile load day, the load reduction required to meet the applicable water quality standard. A percentage TLR was also calculated by dividing the absolute TLR by the baseline pollutant load. 6. The TLR equivalent 24-hour was calculated as the daily runoff volume multiplied by the percentage TLR. 7.2.3. Indicator Bacteria (E. coli) Within the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA9, a TLR approach was developed based on allowable exceedance days. Dominguez Channel is 303(d)-listed for bacteria and its targets were developed consistent with the reference system allowable exceedance approach implemented for other Los Angeles region freshwater TMDLs. The DC has a REC-2 beneficial use designation and a High Flow Suspension (HFS) Day allowance. The Dominguez Channel TLR calculations for bacteria followed a similar methodology as the Santa Monica Bay TLR calculations for fecal coliform. It was assumed that 19% of non-high flow suspension days could exceed 4000 MPN/100mL based on the historical exceedance rates observed at other freshwater bodies in the Los Angeles region (Schiff, Griffith & Lyon, 2005.). This approach is consistent with the Malibu Creek Watershed Bacteria TMDL approach for developing waste load allocations expressed as allowable exceedance days (LARWQCB, 2012b) 7.2.4. Toxicity According to Beach Cities and Dominguez Channel CIMP data, receiving water monitoring from within the Dominguez Channel has not exceeded the interim and final toxicity WQBELs to date. Hence, reasonable assurance is demonstrated and a TLR was not developed for toxicity for the Beach Cities WMG. 9 Includes area tributary to Dominguez Channel Freshwater, Torrance Lateral and Dominguez Channel Estuary. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 35 May 2021 7.2.5. Final Wet Weather TLR Summary By implementing the steps described above, TLRs were developed for each modeled pollutant. TLRs for each pollutant are listed in Table 13. A representative 24-hour management volume was selected for each analysis region. For each analysis region, the largest 24-hour management volume was selected as the target compliance metric, since management of the largest volume will result in management of all others 10. 10 Total copper was not included in the assessment of the largest 24-hour management volume, since significant load reductions will be achieved via the copper brake pad reduction (see Section 8.2.1). As a result, the management volumes needed to meet applicable copper TLRs using structural BMPs are significantly reduced App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 36 May 2021 Table 13. Dominguez Channel WMA Wet Weather TLRs Analysis Region (Receiving Water) Pollutant Critical Condition Baseline Load Target Load Reduction Absolute % of Baseline Load TLR Equivalent 24- Hour Management Volume (ac-ft) DC-N-MB (Dominguez Channel Freshwater) Total Copper 90th percentile daily load 1.3 lb/day 1.1 lb/day 82% 7.3 Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance Total Zinc 90th percentile daily load 6.9 lb/day 5.3 lb/day 76% 6.7[1] E. coli 90th percentile water year 46.1 1012 MPN/yr 19.0 1012 MPN/yr 41% 2.4 Benzo[a]pyrene 90th percentile daily load 2.6E-03 lb/day 1.8E-03 lb/day 70% 4.0 Toxicity CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance DC-N-RB (Dominguez Channel Freshwater) Total Copper 90th percentile daily load 4.1 lb/day 3.3 lb/day 81% 24.3 Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance Total Zinc 90th percentile daily load 22.0 lb/day 16.3 lb/day 74% 22.3[1] E. coli 90th percentile water year 149.8 1012 MPN/yr 53.0 1012 MPN/yr 35% 9.7 Benzo[a]pyrene 90th percentile daily load 7.7E-03 lb/day 5.2E-03 lb/day 67% 12.8 Toxicity CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance DC-S (Dominguez Channel Freshwater) Total Copper 90th percentile daily load 4.0 lb/day 3.0 lb/day 76% 27.1 Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance Total Zinc 90th percentile daily load 18.4 lb/day 11.9 lb/day 65% 22.2[1] E. coli 90th percentile water year 393.8 1012 MPN/yr 179.1 1012 MPN/yr 45% 15.3 Benzo[a]pyrene 90th percentile daily load 1.0E-02 lb/day 5.5E-03 lb/day 55% 18.7 Toxicity CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance DC-TL (Torrance Lateral and Dominguez Channel Estuary) Total Copper 90th percentile daily load 11.5 lb/day 10.4 lb/day 91% 36.8 Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance Total Zinc 90th percentile daily load 65.1 lb/day 57.4 lb/day 88% 35.8[1] Total Cadmium 90th percentile daily load 0.15 lb/day 0.13 lb/day 87% 35.2 E. coli 90th percentile water year 360.8 1012 MPN/yr 175.3 1012 MPN/yr 49% 16.2 Benzo[a]pyrene 90th percentile daily load 2.0E-02 lb/day 1.3E-02 lb/day 67% 34.1 Total PAHs CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance Toxicity CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance Total PCBs CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance Total DDTs CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. Hence no RAA needed to demonstrate compliance [1]Bold value is the representative 24-hour management runoff volume for each analysis region. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 37 April 2021 8. STORMWATER CONTROL OVERVIEW 8.1. Methods to Select and Prioritize BMPs To demonstrate reasonable assurance, BMPs were identified in a prioritized manner to meet the TLRs. Prioritization was based on cost (lower cost BMPs were prioritized first); BMP effectiveness for the pollutants of concern (BMPs that had greater treatment efficiency for the pollutant of concern in a particular analysis region were prioritized over other BMPs); and implementation feasibility as determined by the Beach Cities WMG. It was assumed that the baseline model calibration accounted for existing BMPs that are universally implemented in the Beach Cities EWMP area (e.g., street sweeping, catch basin and storm drain cleaning, low impact development prior to June 2020, etc.). As discussed in Section 5.1, monitoring data from watersheds with existing regional stormwater BMPs and green streets were not used for calibration. The effectiveness of existing, location-specific regional BMPs outside the calibration areas has been quantified in this revised RAA. The RAA was performed according to the following steps: 1. Calculate load reductions associated with future, quantifiable non-structural BMPs (e.g., copper reductions due to brake pad phase-out); 2. Calculate load reductions associated with existing structural BMPs. 3. Calculate load reductions for proposed regional and distributed BMPs that were identified in existing plans; and 4. If necessary, identify new regional or distributed BMPs to meet any remaining TLR. 8.2. Quantified Non-Structural BMPs In accordance with the State Board Order (SWRCB, 2020), all non-structural BMP credits are required to be adequately justified. Since data is quite limited with respect to load reductions achieved by most non-structural BMPs, the Beach Cities RAA incorporated the assumption that non-structural BMPs implemented prior to June 2020 (including enhanced minimal control measures [MCMs]) have been accounted for as part of the data used in the calibrated baseline condition. As a result, no “blanket” non- structural BMP load reduction credit has been incorporated into the revised RAA. Source controls implemented by the Beach Cities WMG include a combination of BMPs such as: new or enhanced pet waste controls (ordinance, signage, education/outreach, mutt mitts, etc.); Clean Bay Restaurant Program; human waste source tracking and remediation (e.g., leaking sewer investigations including implementation of each App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 38 April 2021 agency’s Sanitary Sewer Management Plan consistent with Statewide WDRs, etc.); enhanced street sweeping (e.g., 100% vacuum sweepers, increased frequency, posting of ‘No Parking’ signs for street sweeping, etc.); increased catch basin and storm drain cleaning; and other new or enhanced nonstructural BMPs that target the pollutants addressed in the original EWMP. Although no pollutant load reductions were assumed in the RAA for the implementation of these BMPs, the Beach Cities WMG will continue to implement a variety of these source controls that have proven to be effective. One specific non-structural regulatory BMP program was accounted for in the revised Beach Cities EWMP RAA for which a load reduction could be quantified and forecasted based on phased implementation – elimination of copper in brake pads. 8.2.1. Copper Brake Pad Reduction As was the case in the original Beach Cities EWMP, a load reduction was assumed for copper due to the phased elimination of copper in brake pads. In 2010, California Senate Bill 346 (SB 346) was enacted to eliminate nearly all use of copper in brake pad manufacturing. In 2013, TDC Environmental prepared a technical study for the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) describing the expected percent reduction for copper as a result of the passage of SB 346 (TDC Environmental, 2013). The TDC study identified three possible implementation scenarios, the least aggressive of which estimated that a 52% load reduction in copper will be achieved by 2032 due to the brake pad phase-out. Since the referenced study assumed a 21.2% reduction in urban runoff copper by 2020, and the RAA model was calibrated with local water quality data through June 2020, the load reduction accounted for in the revised RAA was estimated as a weighted fraction of 52%. The difference in estimated total load reduction between 2032 and 2020 (i.e., 52% - 21.2%, or 30.8%) was divided by the assumed remaining load in 2020 (100% - 21.2%, or 78.8%) to estimate the remaining expected load reduction due to the copper brake pad phase-out. Therefore, a 39.1% load reduction was assumed for copper in the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA. To avoid double-counting load reductions, this reduction was applied to the copper load before accounting for future BMP load reductions (i.e., 39.1% was applied to the baseline loads before all other BMP load reductions were accounted for, since BMP performance is dependent on influent loads). 8.3. Modeling Structural BMPs To represent structural BMPs, WMMS 2.0 SUSTAIN was used to account for BMP storage, infiltration, inflow, and outflow capacities using available BMP as-built App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 39 April 2021 drawings or conceptual drawings provided by the Beach Cities WMG. For structural BMPs that provide flow-through treatment, the treatment efficacy was represented as either fixed effluent concentration or as a percentage of influent concentration reduction extracted from the following data sources: • WMMS 2.0 Phase II Report: BMP Model and Optimization Framework (LACFCD, 2020b), which includes effluent concentrations of BMPs included in the default WMMS 2.0 SUSTAIN model. • The International Stormwater Database (IBMPDB; www.bmpdatabase.org), which is a comprehensive source of BMP performance information, comprised of data from a peer-reviewed collection of studies that have monitored the effectiveness of a variety of BMPs in treating water quality pollutants for a variety of land use types. Several existing regional projects were sized (or planned to be sized) to capture runoff from at least the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm event. As controls that fully capture the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm are an alternative form of compliance, reasonable assurance is assumed to be achieved in the project drainage areas. These projects and their tributary drainage areas were excluded from this RAA analysis. Table 14 summarizes the 85th percentile 24-hour projects with their locations shown in Figure 10. Table 14. Summary of Full 85th-Percentile, 24-Hr Design Storm Capture Project Analysis Region Project Name SMB-5-2 Wylie Basin Beach Cities Green Streets 1 (Manhattan Beach 19th Street) SMB-6-1 Torrance Basin Enhancement and Expansion Project (Henrietta, Amie, and Entradero) Beach Cities Green Streets 2 (Manhattan Beach Artesia Blvd.) Beach Cities Green Streets 3 (Redondo Beach Anita Street) Beach Cities Green Streets 4 (Redondo Beach Ford Ave.) Beach Cities Green Streets 5 (Torrance 191st Street) Beach Cities Green Streets 6 (Torrance Northwest) Beach Cities Green Streets 7 (Hermosa Beach) DC-N-MB Manhattan Village Mall LID App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 40 April 2021 Figure 10. Overview of 85th-Percentile, 24-Hour Storm Capture Projects 8.3.1. Regional and Distributed Structural Projects Through the project screening and evaluation process, a total of eight projects, beyond those capturing the 85th percentile, 24-hr storm and described above, are proposed in this RAA. Table 15 summarizes the project types and key modeling parameters. The project locations are shown in Figure 11. Project fact sheets are included in the EWMP within Appendix E. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 41 April 2021 Figure 11. Modeled Regional and Distributed Projects App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 42 May 2021 Table 15. Summary of Modeled Projects Analysis Region Project Lead WMG Member BMP Type Drainage Area (ac) Static BMP Volume (ac-ft) Infiltration /Treatment Rate (cfs) SMB-5-2 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project Manhattan Beach Subsurface Infiltration 1480 1.2 71.5 SMB-6-1 Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project Redondo Beach Subsurface Detention Basin & Infiltration Wells 457 7.4 13 Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells Hermosa Beach Distributed Infiltration Wells 118 0.1 11 Redondo Beach Herondo Distributed Infiltration Project Redondo Beach Distributed Infiltration Wells[1] 342 0.3 22 Hermosa Beach 8th Street Green Infrastructure Project Hermosa Beach Bioretention 8 <0.01 <0.01 DC-N-MB Manhattan Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project Manhattan Beach Distributed Infiltration Wells[1] 255 0.1 11 DC-N-MB/ DC-N-RB Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project Los Angeles County Subsurface Detention & Treatment 1445 7.1 0.9 DC-N-RB Glen Anderson Park Regional Infiltration Project Redondo Beach Subsurface Retention and Infiltration 483 0.3 20 DC-N-RB Redondo Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project Redondo Beach Distributed Infiltration Wells[1] 292 0.2 14 DC-S Torrance Parkway BMP Torrance Bioretention, Treatment, and Infiltration Facilities This project was not modeled due to uncertainty of its future design and performance. TLRs for DC-S and DC-TL will be used as performance metrics during project siting and design. DC-TL [1] Drywells were used as a representative BMP through the revised RAA. Equivalent infiltration BMPs with equivalent performance may be considered at project design phase. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 43 May 2021 8.3.2. Low Impact Development Applied to Redevelopment The 2012 MS4 Permit established new criteria for redevelopment projects, requiring certain sized projects to capture, retain, or infiltrate the 85th percentile, 24-hr design storm or the 0.75-inch design storm, whichever is greater, or treat 150% of the peak stormwater runoff rate resulting from a 1-year, 1-hour design storm, via the implementation of low impact development (LID) BMPs. All LID BMPs constructed through June 2020 were assumed to be accounted for in the model via the monitoring and calibration process. Moving forward, LID was assumed to be implemented at the annual redevelopment rate of 0.08% per year, assuming implementation from July 2020 until the applicable final TMDL deadline.11 In accordance with this projected redevelopment rate, which was summarized in the 2019-20 Beach Cities Annual Watershed Report (Beach Cities WMG, 2020), redevelopment that is subject to an LID ordinance was modeled assuming an annual redevelopment of 0.08% per year across all Beach Cities agency jurisdictions for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and transportation land uses. To estimate load reductions associated with these redevelopment BMPs, the land use percentages were multiplied by the respective land use areas in each analysis region. This resulted in a calculated area that would be treated by LID BMPs each year. This area was multiplied by the applicable number of years until the TMDL final deadlines, as LID BMPs will be implemented each year at the assumed rate. The total land use area assumed to be redeveloped for each analysis region was then modeled as being treated by assumed required BMPs and the total load reduction was quantified. To maintain consistency with the BMP types observed in redevelopment activities to- date in the watershed, 96% of the redeveloped land is projected to implement bioretention or similarly functioning systems that fully capture the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm runoff. The remaining 4% of the redeveloped area will implement biofiltration systems that treat 1.5 times the 85th percentile, 24-hour storm storm runoff. Modeling parameters of the bioretention and biofiltration units are summarized in Table 16. 11 July 2026 was assumed to be the final wet weather deadline. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 44 May 2021 Table 16. Redevelopment LID BMP Modeling Parameters Bioretention Biofiltration Max Years of Redevelopment Modeled 5 years[1] (Santa Monica Bay) 12 years[2] (Dominguez Channel) Pond Depth 12 inches[3] Infiltration Rate 5 in/hr[3] n/a Soil Depth (in) 36 Effluent Concentration Total Cadmium n/a 0.07 ug/L[3]c Total Copper n/a 5.7 ug/L[3]c Total Lead n/a 0.32 ug/L[3]c Total Zinc n/a 12 ug/L[3]c TSS n/a 10 mg/L[3] Indicator Bacteria n/a See Footnote 4 [1] The Beach Cities WMG joined the County of Los Angeles’s request for a 5-year Time Schedule Order (TSO) for the SMBBB Wet Weather TMDL. Hence, it is assumed that the Beach Cities WMG will have to meet the final WLAs by July 2026. [2] Based on the effect year of the final Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL (2032). [3] Default WMMS 2.0 SUSTAIN parameters for bioretention/biofiltration BMPs (LACFCD, 2020b) [4] It is assumed that biofiltration BMP does not provide significant indicator bacteria treatment. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 45 May 2021 9. WET WEATHER RAA RESULTS 9.1. Santa Monica Bay WMA Load reduction calculations for the Beach Cities Santa Monica Bay WMA are summarized in Table 17. Through the RAA, the collective load reductions achieved by all existing and proposed BMPs achieved all the TLRs within the analysis region. Hence, reasonable assurance of compliance is demonstrated. As discussed in Section 7.1.5, a TLR-equivalent 24-hour stormwater management volume was computed for each non-zero TLR. Through the RAA, the 24-hour management volume achieved by a project was computed as the representative volume apportioned to the load reduction that was or would be achieved by the project. The resultant 24-hour management volume of a project may or may not be equal to its static detention capacity shown in Table 15. The approach of evaluating the 24-hour management volume metric to the TLR resulted in prioritizing more efficient BMPs that provide greater load reduction per BMP capacity per day (24-hour period). The 24-hour management volume of each project is shown in Figure 12. To spatially represent the RAA output, the 24-hour management volume is illustrated in Figure 13. As shown in the figure, analysis regions with a zero calculated TLR (e.g., anti- degradation areas; areas demonstrating compliance via water quality data) were assigned a 0 acre-feet 24-hour stormwater management volume. The 24-hour management volume of a regional project was spatially represented by its drainage area. Drainage areas to an 85th percentile, 24-hour design capture project are hatched, indicating these areas demonstrate compliance through the alternative compliance path of full 85th percentile, 24-hour design stormwater capture. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 46 May 2021 Table 17. Beach Cities SMB WMA RAA Summary Analysis Region Fecal Coliform Target Load Reduction (TLR) BMP Load Reduction (LR) Summary 10^12 MPN/yr % of Baseline Load TLR Equivalent 24-Hour Management Volume (ac-ft) LID Redevelopment Regional Project Distributed Project Total Load Reduction RAA Achieved? % of Baseline Load 24-Hour Volume (ac-ft) % of Baseline Load 24-Hour Volume (ac-ft) % of Baseline Load 24-Hour Volume (ac-ft) % of Baseline Load 24-Hour Volume (ac-ft) SMB-5- 01 Anti- Degradation 0% 0 TLR = 0% for Anti-degradation site. No RAA needed n/a SMB-5- 02 59.0 53% 67.1 0.3% 0.4 64% 81.5 0% 0 64.3% 81.9 Yes SMB-5- 03 Anti- Degradation 0% 0 TLR = 0% for Anti-degradation site. No RAA needed n/a SMB-5- 04 Anti- Degradation 0% 0 TLR = 0% for Anti-degradation site. No RAA needed n/a SMB-5- 05 Anti- Degradation 0% 0 TLR = 0% for Anti-degradation site. No RAA needed n/a SMB-6- 01 54.7 49% 51.2 0.3% 0.3 24.8% 25.9 24.1% 25.2 49.1% 51.4 Yes SMB-6- 02 Anti- Degradation 0% 0 TLR = 0% for Anti-degradation site. No RAA needed n/a SMB-6- 03 0.0 0% 0 TLR = 0% based on historical monitoring data. No RAA needed n/a SMB-6- 04 0.0 0% 0 TLR = 0% based on historical monitoring data. No RAA needed n/a SMB-6- 05 Anti- Degradation 0% 0 TLR = 0% for Anti-degradation site. No RAA needed n/a SMB-6- 06 Anti- Degradation 0% 0 TLR = 0% for Anti-degradation site. No RAA needed n/a App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 47 May 2021 Note: Due to comparatively low volumes, LID redevelopment is not shown in the figure Figure 12. 24-Hour Management Volume Breakdown in Santa Monica Bay WMA App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 48 May 2021 Figure 13. 24-Hour Management Mapping in Santa Monica Bay WMA. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 49 May 2021 9.2. Dominguez Channel WMA Load reduction calculations for the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA are summarized in Table 18. Reasonable assurance was demonstrated in all analysis regions. As discussed in Section 7.2.5, a representative 24-hour stormwater management volume was determined for each analysis region. The 24-hour management volume of the projects are shown in Figure 14. It should be noted that, the Torrance Parkway Stormwater BMPs are not explicitly modeled in the RAA. The Beach Cities WMG has submitted a Safe, Clean Water Technical Resource Program application titled “Prioritize Parkway BMPs for Dominguez Channel Toxics TMDL” to assist in project siting. The Beach Cities WMG intends to use the EWMP compliance metrics summarized under the “Regional Project” column in Table 18 as the design criteria. The WMG expects to deploy a combination of catch basin inserts, green streets and parkway stormwater capture project to meet the TLR and the 24-hour management volume need through the Technical Resources Study. To spatially represent the RAA output, the 24-hour management volume is illustrated in Figure 15. The 24-hour management volume of each regional project was applied to its drainage area. The volume assigned to areas draining to multiple projects were the cumulative volumes from all projects. Drainage area to a full 85th percentile 24-hour design capture project was hatched, indicating theses area demonstrated compliance through the alternative compliance path of full 85th percentile 24-hour design stormwater capture. In addition, area covered under separate stormwater permit (e.g. Caltrans right- of-way, Torrance Refinery plant) was hatched. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 50 May 2021 Table 18. Beach Cities DC WMA RAA Summary Analysis Region[1] Pollutant Final Target Load Reduction BMP Load Reduction Summary Non-Structural BMP LID Redevelopment Regional Project Distributed Projects Total Load Reduction Assurance Achieved? Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % DC-N-MB (DC Freshwater) Total Copper 1.1 lb/day 82% 0.5 lb/day 39% 0.01 lb/day 0.9% 0.2 lb/day 16% 0.4 lb/day 33% 1.1 lb/day 89% Yes Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed n/a Total Zinc 5.3 lb/day 76% 0 lb/day 0% 0.1 lb/day 0.9% 1.6 lb/day 23% 3.7 lb/day 54% 5.4 lb/day 78% Yes E. coli 19.0 1012 MPN/yr 41% 0 1012 MPN/yr 0% 0.3 1012 MPN/y 0.7% 8.7 1012 MPN/yr 19% 19.5 1012 MPN/yr 42% 28.5 1012 MPN/ yr 62% Yes Benzo[a] pyrene 1.8 E-03 lb/day 70% 0 lb/day 0% 2.4 E-05 lb/day 0.9% 4.9 E-04 lb/day 19% 1.4 E-03 lb/day 56% 2.0 E-03 lb/day 76% Yes 24-Hour Management Need 6.7[2] ac-ft 100% 0 ac-ft 0% 0.1 ac-ft 0.9% 1.9 ac-ft 29% 5.2 ac-ft 77% 7.2 ac-ft 100 % Yes DC-N-RB (DC Freshwater) Total Copper 3.3 lb/day 81% 1.6 lb/day 39% 0.04 lb/day 0.9% 0.5 lb/day 13% 1.3 lb/day 32% 3.4 lb/day 85% Yes Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed n/a Total Zinc 16.3 lb/day 74% 0 lb/day 0% 0.2 lb/day 1.0% 4.1 lb/day 19% 12.4 lb/day 56% 16.7 lb/day 76% Yes E. coli 53.0 1012 MPN/ 35% 0 1012 MPN/y 0% 1.1 1012 MPN/y 0.7% 49.5 1012 MPN/yr 33% 19.1 1012 MPN/yr 13% 69.7 1012 MPN/ yr 47% Yes Benzo[a]pyre ne 5.2 E-03 lb/day 67% 0 lb/day 0% 7E-05 lb/day 1.0% 2E- 03 lb/day 25% 4E-03 lb/day 48% 6E-03 lb/day 73% Yes 24-Hour Management Need 22.3[2] ac-ft 100% 0 ac-ft 0% 0.2 ac-ft/ 1.0% 15.5 ac-ft 69% 8.3 ac-ft 37% 24.0 ac-ft 100 % Yes DC-S (DC Freshwate Total Copper 3.0 lb/day 76% 1.5 lb/day 39% 0.1 lb/day 0.9% 0 lb/day 0% 1.4 lb/day 36% 3.0 lb/day 76% Yes Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed n/a Total Zinc 11.9 lb/day 65% 0 lb/day 0% 0.2 lb/day 1.0% 0 lb/day 0% 11.7 lb/day 64% 11.9 lb/day 65% Yes App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 51 May 2021 Analysis Region[1] Pollutant Final Target Load Reduction BMP Load Reduction Summary Non-Structural BMP LID Redevelopment Regional Project Distributed Projects Total Load Reduction Assurance Achieved? Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % Absolute % E. coli 179.1 1012 MPN/y 45% 0 10^12 MPN/yr 0% 2.2 1012 MPN/yr 0.6% 0 10^12 MPN/yr 0% 176.9 10^12 MPN/yr 45% 179.1 1012 MPN/ yr 45% Yes Benzo[a]pyre ne 5.5 E-03 lb/day 55% 0 lb/day 0% 9.4 E-05 lb/day 0.9% 0 lb/day 0% 5.5 E-03 lb/day 54% 5.5 E-03 lb/day 55% Yes 24-Hour Management Need 22.2[2] ac-ft 100% 0 ac-ft 0% 0.3 ac-ft 1.1% 0 ac-ft 0% 21.9 ac-ft 99% 22.2 ac-ft 100 % Yes DC-TL (DC Estuary and Torrance Lateral) Total Copper 10.4 lb/day 91% 4.5 lb/day 39% 0.1 lb/day 1.0% 0 lb/day 0% 5.8 lb/day 51% 10.4 lb/day 91% Yes Total Lead CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed n/a Total Zinc 57.4 lb/day 88% 0 lb/day 0% 0.6 lb/day 1.0% 0 lb/day 0% 56.8 lb/day 87% 57.4 lb/day 88% Yes Total Cadmium 0.13 lb/day 87% 0 lb/day 0% 1.0 E-3 lb/day 0.7% 0 lb/day 0% 0.13 lb/day 87% 0.13 lb/day 87% Yes E. coli 175.3 1012 MPN/yr 49% 0 1012 MPN/y 0% 2.1 1012 MPN/yr 0.6% 0 1012 MPN/yr 0% 173.2 1012 MPN/yr 49% 175.3 1012 MPN/ yr 49% Yes Benzo[a]pyre ne 1.3 E-02 lb/day 67% 0 lb/day 0% 2E-04 lb/day 0.9% 0 lb/day 0% 1.3 E-02 lb/day 66% 1.3 E-02 lb/day 67% Yes Total PAHs CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed n/a 24-Hour Management Need 35.8[2] ac-ft 100% 0 ac-ft 0% 0.3 ac-ft 1.0% 0 ac-ft 0% 35.5 ac-ft 99% 35.8 ac-ft 100 % Yes Total DDT CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed n/a Total PCB CIMP data shows no exceedance in the past 5 years. No RAA needed n/a [1] Corresponding receiving water is also listed. DC = Dominguez Channel. [2 ]Please see Table 13 on how the representative 24-hour management volume was selected for each analysis region. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 52 May 2021 Note: Due to comparatively low volumes, LID redevelopment is not shown in the figure Figure 14. 24-Hour Management Volume Breakdown in Dominguez Channel WMA App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 53 May 2021 Figure 15. 24-Hour Management Volume Mapping in Dominguez Channel WMA App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 54 May 2021 10. DRY WEATHER RAA RESULT The dry weather RAA was performed in accordance with the semi-quantitative approach outlined in Section 4.2. A summary of the analysis is shown in Table 19. WMA-specific discussion of the dry weather RAA is presented in the following subsections. Table 19. Dry Weather RAA Summary for Dominguez Channel WMA. WMA Analysis Region Is non-exempt dry weather flow currently non-existent and/or sufficiently treated or diverted? Are sufficient structural BMP proposed to intercept 100% of dry weather runoff? Is dry weather reasonable assurance demonstrated? Santa Monica Bay All Yes n/a Yes Dominguez Channel (including Torrance Lateral) DC-N-RB Yes Proposed Yes DC-N-MB Yes Proposed Yes DC-S Yes Proposed Yes DC-TL Yes Proposed Yes 10.1. Santa Monica Bay WMA According to monitoring and observation data collected through the Beach Cities CIMP, the effectiveness of low flow diversions that intercept and divert 100% of non-exempt dry weather flow from the receiving water is consistently confirmed by observations. Therefore, reasonable assurance of compliance during dry weather is demonstrated for the Beach Cities Santa Monica Bay WMA. 10.2. Dominguez Channel WMA For Beach Cities DC (including Torrance Lateral) WMA, a dry weather RAA was performed in accordance with the approach outlined in Section 4.2. The Beach Cities WMG has attempted to eliminate non-exempt dry weather MS4 discharges using a suite of structural BMPs and non-structural source controls (e.g., water conservation incentives, enhanced IDDE efforts, enhanced education/outreach, and inspection/enforcement to prevent sources of non-stormwater flow). To date, monitoring has shown that the WMG has been successful at this endeavor, and although dry weather flows do still exist in some outfalls draining to the DC, particularly within Torrance Lateral, the WMG has successfully demonstrated that these discharges are considered conditionally exempt. In parallel to the ongoing effort of fully eliminating non-exempt dry weather MS4 discharges, the Beach Cities WMG has also planned to utilize structural BMPs to intercept additional dry weather runoff that may cause or contribute to receiving water App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 55 May 2021 exceedances. The Alondra Park Stormwater Capture Project will intercept and capture 100% of dry weather runoff from both the DC-N-RB and DC-N-MB analysis regions. In addition, the City of Torrance plans to provide significant parkway BMP retrofits throughout the DC-S and DC-TL analysis regions, with a particular focus on areas that consistently discharge to the Dominguez Channel during dry weather. For the purposes of this EWMP, and consistent with the original EWMP, it has been assumed that such parkway BMP retrofits will be sufficient to handle the dry weather bacteria loads tributary to the discharge locations. Therefore, reasonable assurance of compliance during dry weather is demonstrated for the Beach Cities Dominguez Channel WMA. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 56 May 2021 11. CONCLUSIONS To update the RAA for the revised Beach Cities EWMP, a modeling approach that utilized WMMS 2.0 was applied using the rationale, analytical basis, and process described in this RAA report. The RAA process: 1. Applied an acceptable model tailored to the Beach Cities WMG based on available outfall and receiving water data collected through June 2020. 2. Calculated TLRs necessary to achieve applicable compliance targets. 3. Demonstrated that the existing and proposed suite of projects will attain the TLRs. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 57 May 2021 12. REFERENCES Beach Cities WMG (Watershed Management Group). 2020. Annual Watershed Report – Reporting Year 2019 – 20. Schiff, K.C., J.F. Griffith, G. Lyon. 2005. Microbiological water quality at reference beaches in southern California during wet weather. Technical Report 448. Southern California Coastal Water Research Project. Westminster, CA. LACFCD (Los Angeles Flood Control District). 2020a. WMMS 2.0 Average and 90th Percentile Water Year Simulation. Accessed December 2020 from <link> LACFCD (Los Angeles Flood Control District). 2020b. WMMS 2.0 Phase II Report: BMP Model and Optimization Framework. Accessed December 2020 from <link> LACFCD (Los Angeles Flood Control District). 2020c. WMMS 2.0 Average & 90th Percentile Water Year. Accessed January 2021 from <link> LARWQCB (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2011. Attachment A to Resolution No. R11-009. Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan - Los Angeles Region to Incorporate the TMDL for Toxic Pollutants in Dominguez Channel and Greater Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor Waters. Adopted May 5 LARWQCB (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2012. Attachment A to Resolution No. R12-009. Amendment to the water quality control plan for the Los Angeles Region to revise the TMDL for bacteria in the Malibu Creek Watershed. Adopted June 7. LARWQCB (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2014a. Guidelines for Conducting Reasonable Assurance Analysis in a Watershed Management Program, Including an Enhanced Watershed Management Program. Los Angeles, CA. LARWQCB (Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2014b. Water Quality Control Plan: Los Angeles Region Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Accessed January 2021 from <link>. SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2020. In the Matter of Review of Approval of Watershed Management Programs and an Enhanced Watershed Management Program Submitted Pursuant to Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Order R4-2012-0175. SWRCB/OCC FILES A-2386, A-2477 & A-2508. Sacramento, CA. App D. RAA Report (2021-05-17)_clean.docx 58 May 2021 TDC Environmental. 2013. Estimate of Urban Runoff Copper Reduction in Los Angeles County from the Brake Pad Copper Reductions Mandated by SB 346. Prepared for Richard Watson & Associates, Inc. Accessed January 3, 2021. Attachment D.1 Supplementary Calibration Exhibits Water Quality Calibration E. Coli Water Quality Calibration E. Coli Water Quality Calibration Total Cadmium Water Quality Calibration Total Copper Water Quality Calibration Total Lead Water Quality Calibration Total Copper Beach Cities Watershed Management Group Revised EWMP Appendix E: Project Concept Fact Sheets JUNE 2021 The City of Manhattan Beach (City)is implementing the 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project (Project)to improve water quality at the beach and in Santa Monica Bay by reducing discharges from the storm drain system.The Project will capture and infiltrate runoff and is split into two phases.Phase 1 includes approximately 48 drywells at the 26th Street Parking Facility and Phase 2 includes an infiltration system on the beach. The 26th Street Parking Facility is one block East of Manhattan Beach and bounded by 26th Street,27th Street,Manhattan Avenue, and Ocean Drive.Surface runoff from the tributary area enters the storm drain network and discharges to Santa Monica Bay. Existing Site Conditions Infiltration Bypass 27th Street Storm DrainRouted Flow Impervious Area to 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration: Drywells *Products shown above were used as examples for sizing and cost analyses; other equivalent treatment systems may be used. Proposed BMP Project City: Manhattan Beach Latitude: 33.894050 Longitude: -118.416294 Phase 1 BMP Treatment Process Planning-Level Cost Estimate1 Tributary Area (ac)1,520 24-Hour Treatment Volume (ac-ft)81.91No. of Proposed Drywells 48 Bacteria Load Reduction During Critical Condition 7.2 x 1013 MPN/year (64% of Baseline Bacteria Load) Capital Cost Construction $16M Planning & Design $1.7M Annual Costs O&M $155k Monitoring $50k Multiple Benefits Dry Well Typical Details Site Configuration Model Design & Performance Community Investment Benefits •Improved flood management and water quality •Enhanced beach conditions •Reduced potential for beach closures •Create opportunities for education and outreach in local communities Nature-Based Solutions •Provide an enhanced environment for marine life •Improve 26th Street Parking with native landscaping and permeable pavement •Reduce impermeable area flowing to existing drainage system 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project 1Estimates based on drywells. 2Monitoring is only required for 3 years. Phase 2 BMP Treatment Process Infiltration Bypass Santa Monica BayRouted Flow Impervious Area 27th & 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration System 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project June 2021 2 1 Phase 1 only This project will improve the three flood control basins to reduce bacteria levels in receiving waters during the dry season and to capture the 85th percentile storm event.The project deepens the Henreitta and Entradero Basins to provide additional detention capacity,adds passive wetland treatment and drywells at all basins to increase the runoff management capacity.The project also includes a variety of efforts to improve the recreational opportunities and aesthetics of the parks. Herondo Drain collects stormwater from portions of the cities of Torrance,Redondo Beach,Hermosa Beach,and Manhattan Beach.Three basins within Torrance that are connected to the Herondo Drain including Amie,Henrietta,and Entradero Basins. Existing Site Conditions Infiltration Bypass Herondo Storm DrainRouted Flow Impervious Surface Runoff to Storm Drain Basin *Products shown above were used as examples for sizing and cost analyses; other equivalent treatment systems or products may be used. Proposed BMP Project City: Torrance Latitude: 33.853378 Longitude: -118.371828 BMP Treatment Process Planning-Level Cost Estimate1 Total Tributary Area (ac)1,407 24-Hour Capture Volume (ac-ft)46.5* Basin Footprint (ac) 4.3 (Amie) 6.9 (Henrietta) 24 (Entradero) Effective Drawdown Rate (in/hr)0.8 Capital Cost Construction $4.5M Planning & Design $735k Annual Costs O&M $30k Monitoring $80k Multiple Benefits Typical Details Site Configuration Model Design & Performance Community Investment Benefits •Improved flood management and water quality •Enhanced park space via multi- purpose recreational area. •Create new recreational opportunities via walking trail Nature-Based Solutions •Implements natural processes to slow, detain, capture, and infiltrate water •Utilize natural vegetation •Reduce directly connected impermeable area flowing to existing drainage system Torrance Basins Enhancement & Expansion Project 1Costs from SCW application 2Monitoring is only required for 3 years. *Equivalent to the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm runoff from the entire drainage area. Torrance Basins Enhancement & Expansion Project June 2021 2 The Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project proposes to add infiltration elements to the existing flood control basin to transform it into a multi-benefit regional project.This will enhance the flood control capacity of the existing basin while adding significant water quality benefits through volume loss via infiltration.Infiltration will be accomplished using drywells.The project will provide full capture of dry weather volume and controlled wet weather releases with improved inlet-outlet control structures to manage and optimize the storage and infiltration capacity of the project.Park enhancements including outdoor exercise and playground equipment are also planned. Adding features that can better capture runoff from the adjacent school along with green water quality features such as bioretention and ocean friendly gardens in the park and along Rindge Lane will provide additional benefits to the community. The site is an open green space in the City of Redondo Beach. The park includes a 1.25-acre recreational field with an existing underground storage basin that has 280,000 gallons of passive storage beneath the western half of the park. Existing Site Conditions Infiltration Bypass Existing Storm DrainRouted Flow Impervious Area Draining to the Existing Underground Storage Basin Infiltration: 13 Drywells *Drywells were used for sizing and cost analyses; other equivalent products or treatment systems may be used but have not been included in costs. Proposed BMP Project City: Redondo Beach Latitude: 33.861774 Longitude: -118.372308 BMP Treatment Process Planning-Level Cost Estimate1 Tributary Area (ac)457 24-Hour Treatment Volume (ac-ft)26 No. of Proposed Equivalent Drywells 13 Treatment Rate (cfs)13 Bacteria Load Reduction During Critical Condition 28 x 1012 MPN/year (25% of Baseline Bacteria Load) Capital Cost Construction $2.0M Planning & Design $395kAnnual Costs O&M $30k Monitoring $14k Multiple Benefits Typical Details Site Configuration Model Design & Performance Community Investment Benefits •Improved flood management •Enhanced park via playground •Cooperation with greening of Valor Christian Academy •Potential for recreational workout stations per community preferences Nature-Based Solutions •Utilize natural vegetation and other nature-based processes such as ocean friendly gardens to capture, slow, and filter runoff •Reduce directly connected impermeable area flowing to existing drainage system Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project 1Estimates based on representative drywells and previous project estimates for piping. 2Monitoring is only required for 3 years.*Nature-based BMPs may include bioretention,pervious pavement,and biofilters. Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project June 2021 2 Existing Site Conditions *Products shown above were used as examples for sizing and cost analyses; other equivalent infiltration systems may be used. Redondo Beach HerondoDistributed Infiltration Project Infiltration Bypass Existing Storm DrainRouted Flow Impervious Surface Runoff Infiltration: Targeted Infiltration Systems Overflow Proposed BMP Project City: Redondo Beach Latitude: Various Longitude: Various BMP Treatment Process Planning-Level Cost Estimate1 Typical Detail Site Configuration Model Design & Performance Surface runoff enters the storm drain network through various catch basins, as seen below on Armour Lane. The drainage area is mostly residential, with limited commercial development. The City of Redondo Beach is planning to implement a series of targeted infiltration BMPs to collect surface runoff from a 342- acre area of Redondo Beach within the Herondo Storm Drain watershed (SMB-6-1).The infiltration BMPs will be placed strategically upstream of existing catch basins to maximize infiltration;see site configuration map for potential infiltration areas.Drywells are one example of a potential infiltration BMP. Capital Cost Construction $2.8M Planning & Design $460k Annual Costs O&M $70k Monitoring $55k 1Estimates based on drywells. 2Monitoring only required for 3 years. 2 Tributary Area (ac)342 24-Hour Treatment Volume (ac-ft)17.6 No. of Proposed Infiltration BMPs 22 Treatment Rate (cfs)22 Pollutant Load Reduction Bacteria 19 x 1012 MPN/year (17% of Baseline Bacteria Load) Multiple Benefits Community Investment Benefits •Improved flood management Nature-Based Solutions •Utilize natural vegetation and other nature-based processes to slow, detain, capture, and filter water •Reduce directly connected impermeable area flowing to existing drainage system Redondo Beach Herondo Distributed Infiltration Project June 2021 Existing Site Conditions *Products shown above were used as examples for sizing and cost analyses; other equivalent products or treatment systems may be used. Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells Infiltration Bypass Existing Storm DrainRouted Flow Impervious Surface Runoff Infiltration: Drywells Overflow Proposed BMP Project City: Hermosa Beach Latitude: 33.857054 Longitude: -118.390251 BMP Treatment Process Planning-Level Cost Estimate1 Multiple Benefits Typical Detail Site Configuration Model Design & Performance Untreated surface runoff enters the storm drain network through surface catch basins in this area as the neighborhood transitions from residential in the higher areas to commercial areas near the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). A typical example is shown on 3rd Street, east of PCH. The City of Hermosa Beach is planning to implement a series of drywells east of PCH between 1st Street and 10th Street to capture stormwater and dry weather flows within 118 acres of the Herondo Drain (SMB-6-1)watershed.The drywells will be placed strategically upstream of existing catch basins to maximize infiltration. Capital Cost Construction of Drywells $1.4M Planning & Design $250k Annual Costs O&M $35k Monitoring $25k 1Estimates based on drywells. 2Monitoring only required for 3 years. 2 Tributary Area (ac)118 24-Hour Treatment Volume (ac-ft)7.7 No. of Proposed Drywells 11 Treatment Rate (cfs)11 Pollutant Load Reduction Bacteria 8.2 x 1012 MPN/year (7% of Baseline Bacteria Load) Community Investment Benefits •Improved flood management Nature-Based Solutions •Utilize natural vegetation and other nature-based processes to slow, detain, capture, and filter water •Reduce directly connected impermeable area flowing to existing drainage system Source: Google Maps Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells June 2021 Existing Site Conditions *Products shown above are referenced as examples for sizing and cost analyses; other equivalent products or treatment systems may be used. Manhattan Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project Infiltration Bypass Existing Storm Drain Routed Flow Surface Runoff from Impervious Surfaces Infiltration Overflow Proposed BMP Project City: Manhattan Beach Latitude: 33.898811 Longitude: -118.381272 BMP Treatment Process Manhattan Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project June 2021 Planning-Level Cost Estimate1 Tributary Area (ac)225 24-Hour Treatment Volume (ac-ft)*5.2 Pollutant Load Reduction Range (% of Baseline Load) Copper 83% Zinc 77% Bacteria 43% Benzo [a] pyrene 71% Typical Detail Site Configuration Model Design & Performance The majority of Manhattan Beach’s tributary area within the Dominguez Channel Watershed flows through a 27-inch storm drain under 33rd St before turning south down Aviation Blvd. The storm drain is downstream of a detention pond at a nearby golf course. The City of Manhattan Beach is planning to implement infiltration practices along 33rd Street and/or Aviation Blvd to capture and infiltrate stormwater flows from a 255-acre mixed- use area of Manhattan Beach and within the Dominguez Channel watershed.Multiple types of BMPs are under consideration to provide required treatment. Source: Google Maps Capital Cost Construction $1.4M Planning & Design $250k Annual Costs O&M $35k Monitoring $25k 1Estimates based on representative drywells. 2Monitoring only required for 3 years. 2 Multiple Benefits Community Investment Benefits •Improved flood management Nature-Based Solutions •Utilize natural vegetation and other nature-based processes to slow, detain, capture, and filter water •Reduce directly connected impermeable areas flowing to existing drainage system *Includes static storage capacity and 24-hour infiltration capacity The Glen Anderson Park Regional Infiltration Project will provide infiltration via a single underground infiltration basin,a series of drywells,or a combination of both.Wet and dry weather runoff from City of Redondo Beach travels north in the 78-inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain (LACFCD BI 0729)that runs under Vail Ave.The Project will divert runoff from this storm drain into a pretreatment system,before flows continue into the infiltration-based BMP. Glen Anderson Park is a 12.4-acre multi-use park in the City of Redondo Beach,located adjacent to Lincoln Elementary School between Rindge Lane,Farrell Avenue,and Vail Avenue.The park has significant green space in addition to baseball fields,tennis courts,basketball courts,and a playground. Existing Site Conditions Infiltration Bypass Existing Storm DrainFlow Routed Impervious Area Draining to Vail Avenue Infiltration *Products shown above were used as examples for sizing and cost analyses; other equivalent products or treatment systems may be used. Glen Anderson Park Regional Infiltration Project Overflow Proposed BMP Project City: Redondo Beach Latitude: 33.882775 Longitude: -118.370948 BMP Treatment Process June 2021 Planning-Level Cost Estimate1 Multiple Benefits Typical Details Site Configuration Model Design & Performance Capital Cost Construction $2.8M Planning & Design $460k Annual Costs O&M $65k Monitoring $50k Tributary Area (ac)483 24-Hour Treatment Volume (ac-ft)9.4 Potential Footprint for Infiltration (ac)0.45 Design Treatment Rate (cfs)20 Pollutant Load Reduction Range (% of Baseline Load) Copper 81% Zinc 74% Bacteria 44% Benzo [a] pyrene 67% Community Investment Benefits •Improved flood management •Enhanced park Nature-Based Solutions •Utilize natural vegetation and other nature-based processes to slow, detain, capture, and filter water •Reduce directly connected impermeable area flowing to existing drainage system 1Estimates based on representative drywells and previous project estimates for piping. 2Monitoring only required for 3 years. Glen Anderson Park Regional Infiltration Project 2 Existing Site Conditions *Products shown above were used as examples for sizing and cost analyses; other equivalent products may be used. Redondo Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project Infiltration Bypass Existing Storm DrainRouted Flow Impervious Surface Runoff Infiltration BMPs Overflow Proposed BMP Project City: Redondo Beach Latitude: 33.882775 Longitude: -118.370948 BMP Treatment Process Planning-Level Cost Estimate1 Typical Detail Site Configuration Model Design & Performance Surface runoff enters the storm drain network through a variety of surface catch basins, as seen below on Redondo Beach Blvd within the drainage area. The City of Redondo Beach is planning to implement a series of targeted and distributed infiltration BMPs to collect surface runoff from a portion of a 292-acre industrial area within the Dominguez Channel watershed.Implementation of targeted infiltration BMPs will fully capture dry weather flows in addition to treating stormwater flows from the tributary areas.The infiltration BMPs will be placed strategically upstream of existing catch basins;see site configuration map for potential infiltration areas.Drywells are one example of a potential infiltration BMP. Capital Cost Construction $1.8M Planning & Design $320k Annual Costs O&M $40k Monitoring $30k 1Estimates based on drywells. 2Monitoring only required for 3 years. 2 Tributary Area (ac)292 24-Hour Treatment Volume (ac-ft)8.3 No. of Proposed Infiltration BMPs*14 Treatment Rate (cfs)14 Pollutant Load Reduction Range (% of Baseline Load) Copper 81% Zinc 74% Bacteria 44% Benzo [a] pyrene 67% Multiple Benefits Community Investment Benefits •Improved flood management Nature-Based Solutions •Utilize natural vegetation and other nature-based processes to slow, detain, capture, and filter water •Reduce directly connected impermeable area flowing to existing drainage system Redondo Beach Dominguez Channel Distributed Infiltration Project June 2021 The City of Torrance is committed to implementing distributed parkway BMPs within the Dominguez Channel watershed management area (analysis regions Dominguez Chanel –South [DC- S]and the Torrance Lateral draining to the Dominguez Chanel [DC- TL])to meet the RAA requirements.Specific BMP technologies are currently being evaluated to best address pollutants of concern,but may include catch basin inlet filters,bioretention units,or drywells, where deemed feasible.The City of Torrance has applied for Safe Clean Water funding under the Technical Resources Program to prioritize catch basins for implementation.Collectively,the Torrance Parkway BMPs will be implemented by the City of Torrance at a level that meets the EWMP compliance requirements. Infiltration Bypass Existing Storm Drain Routed Flow Stormwater and Dry Weather Runoff Distributed BMPs (inlet filters, bioretention units, or drywells) *Products shown above were used as examples for sizing and cost analyses; other equivalent treatment systems may be used. Proposed BMP Project City: Torrance Latitude: Various Longitude: Various BMP Treatment Process Multiple Benefits Typical Details BMP Coverage Overview Design Criteria for EWMP Compliance Community Investment Benefits •Improved flood management and water quality •Reducing local heat island effect and increasing shade •Increasing vegetation at site locations to increase carbon reduction and improve air quality Nature-Based Solutions •Implement natural processes to slow detain, capture, and infiltrate runoff •Utilize natural vegetation •Reduce impermeable area flowing to existing drainage system Torrance Parkway BMPs AnalysisRegion24-Hour Management Volume (ac-ft) Pollutant Load Reduction (% of Baseline Load) Copper Zinc E.coli Benzo [a]pyrene DC-S 21.9 36%64%45%54% DC-TL 35.4 51%87%48%66% Bioretention Drywell Catch Basin Inlet Filter DC-S DC-TL Treated Flow Torrance Parkway BMPs June 2021 Beach Cities Watershed Management Group Revised EWMP Appendix F: Background Information on the LACFCD JUNE 2021 Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix F | LACFCD Background F-2 | Page 2021 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE LACFCD This attachment provides background information pertaining to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), and their involvement in the Beach Cities Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP) Plan. In 1915, the Los Angeles County Flood Control Act established the LACFCD and empowered it to manage flood risk and conserve stormwater for groundwater recharge. In coordination with the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the LACFCD developed and constructed a comprehensive system that provides the regulation and control of flood waters through the use of reservoirs and flood channels. The system also controls debris, collects surface storm water from streets, and replenishes groundwater with stormwater and imported and recycled waters. The LACFCD covers the 2,753 square-mile portion of Los Angeles County south of the east-west projection of Avenue S, excluding Catalina Island. It is a special district governed by the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, and its functions are carried out by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. For the Beach Cities EWMP, the LACFCD service area is shown in Figure 1. Unlike cities and counties, the LACFCD does not own or operate any municipal sanitary sewer systems, public streets, roads, or highways. The LACFCD operates and maintains storm drains and other appurtenant drainage infrastructure within its service area. The LACFCD has no planning, zoning, development permitting, or other land use authority within its service area. The Permittees that have such land use authority are responsible under the MS4 Permit for inspecting and controlling pollutants from industrial and commercial facilities, development projects, and development construction sites. (MS4 Permit, Part II.E, page 14.) The MS4 Permit language clarifies the unique role of the LACFCD in storm water management programs: “[g]iven the LACFCD’s limited land use authority, it is appropriate for the LACFCD to have a separate and uniquely-tailored storm water management program. Accordingly, the storm water management program minimum control measures imposed on the LACFCD in Part VI.D of this Order differ in some ways from the minimum control measures imposed on other Permittees. Namely, aside from its own properties and facilities, the LACFCD is not subject to the Industrial/Commercial Facilities Program, the Planning and Land Development Program, and the Development Construction Program. However, as a discharger of storm and non-storm water, the LACFCD remains subject to the Public Information and Participation Program and the Illicit Connections and Illicit Discharges Elimination Program. Further, as the owner and operator of certain properties, facilities and infrastructure, the LACFCD remains subject to requirements of a Public Agency Activities Program.” (MS4 Permit, Part II.F, page 15). Consistent with the role and responsibilities of the LACFCD under the MS4 Permit, the EWMPs and Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Programs (CIMPs) reflect the opportunities that are available for the LACFCD to collaborate with Permittees having land use authority over the subject watershed area. In some instances, the opportunities are minimal; however, the LACFCD remains responsible for compliance with certain aspects of the MS4 Permit as discussed above. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix F | LACFCD Background F-3 | Page 2021 In some instances, in recognition of the increased efficiency of implementing certain programs regionally, the LACFCD has committed to responsibilities above and beyond its obligations under the 2012 MS4 Permit. For example, although under the 2012 MS4 Permit the Public Information and Participation Program (PIPP) is a responsibility of each Permittee, the LACFCD is committed to implementing certain regional elements of the PIPP on behalf of all Permittees at no cost to the Permittees. These regional elements include: • Maintaining a countywide hotline (888-CLEAN-LA) and website (www.888cleanla.com) for public reporting and general stormwater management information. Each Permittee can utilize this hotline and website for public reporting within its jurisdiction. • Broadcasting public service announcements and conducting regional advertising campaigns. • Facilitating the dissemination of public education and activity specific stormwater pollution prevention materials. • Maintaining a stormwater website. The LACFCD will continue to implement these elements on behalf of all Permittees during the current MS4 Permit term. With the LACFCD handling these elements regionally, Permittees can better focus on implementing local or watershed-specific programs, including student education and community events, to fully satisfy the PIPP requirements of the 2012 MS4 Permit. Similarly, although water quality monitoring is a responsibility of each Permittee under the 2012 MS4 Permit, the LACFCD is committed to implementing certain regional elements of the monitoring program to help increase the efficiency and effectiveness of this program. These efforts include: • Conducting monitoring at the seven existing mass emissions stations required under the previous Permit. This is in addition to the LACFCD’s contribution to individual CIMP groups. • Participating in the Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition’s Regional Bioassessment Program on behalf of all Permittees. In addition, the LACFCD is committed to developing tools and programs that benefit all Permittees in Los Angeles County. Some of these efforts include the following: • The development and maintenance of Watershed Reporting Adaptive Management & Planning System (WRAMPS), which assists permittees in preparing their MS4 annual report. • The development and maintenance of Watershed Management Modeling System (WMMS), which is the primary model being used by watershed groups to meet reasonable assurance analysis (RAA) requirements or watershed modeling requirements in the development of their Watershed Management Program (WMP) or Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP). • The management/administration of Safe, Clean Water (SCW) Program, which provides a dedicated revenue source for all municipalities, including MS4 permittees, to implement multi-benefit stormwater projects and programs that improve water quality and either increase water supply through augmenting local groundwater and recycled water use or enhance communities. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix F | LACFCD Background F-4 | Page 2021 LACFCD Territory Beach Cities Watershed Management Group Revised EWMP Appendix G: Potential Funding Sources and Financial Strategy JUNE 2021 Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-1 | Page 2021 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES AND FINANCIAL STRATEGY The availability of funds is critical for the successful implementation of the Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP). This appendix provides an overview of potentially available funding sources for programs and projects proposed in the EWMP. The funding sources included in this section for consideration are Measure W (Safe, Clean Water Program), grants, interagency partnerships, bonds, State Revolving Funds, local funding opportunities, and public private partnerships. A summary of potential financial approaches for the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (WMG) is provided in Table G-1, with additional details and discussion provided in the sections following. Table G-1. Funding Approach Summary Approach Funding Type Limitations Potential Significance (with Respect to Overall Funding) Safe, Clean Water Regional Program New Revenue • Highly Competitive • Application preparation requires significant effort/cost High Grants New Revenue • Highly Competitive • No guarantee of funding accessibility • Infrastructure projects only • Application preparation/submission requires significant effort/cost • Can only be used to pay for infrastructure-related projects • O&M costs are typically excluded Medium Project-Specific Interagency Partnerships New Revenue • Requires coordination between agencies • Varying project implementation schedules between agencies limit the viability of such an option High Local Bond Issuance Financing • GO bonds require approval by voters. • Revenue bond requires to be backed by a revenue stream • There is a financing cost • Infrastructure projects only • O&M costs are typically excluded Low State Revolving Funds Financing • Revenue stream is needed to obtain loans • There is a financing cost • Infrastructure projects only • O&M costs are typically excluded High Local Public Funding Opportunities New Revenue • Requires voter approval • Infrastructure projects only (except for stormwater fee) High Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-2 | Page 2021 Approach Funding Type Limitations Potential Significance (with Respect to Overall Funding) • O&M costs are typically excluded (except for stormwater fee) Public Private Partnership Financing • Revenue stream is needed to allow the private partner to recover their cost as well as provide return on investment High Direct Subsidies / Cost-Sharing • Funding source is needed to fund a subsidy program • Some projects may underperform due to poor project implementation, O&M, and monitoring Low RECENT FUNDING EXAMPLES WITHIN THE BEACH CITIES The Beach Cities WMG has been working cooperatively to pursue funding for projects identified in the EWMP by leveraging multiple sources of funding. In 2018, the Beach Cities WMG secured $2M in Prop 12 Santa Monica Bay Restoration Grant funding by the California Coastal Conservancy and the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission to fund the design and construction of the joint Beach Cities Green Street Project. The Prop 12 grant funding provides approximately 39% of the total estimated Beach Cities Green Street Project cost of $5.1M with the balance to be matched by the Beach Cities WMG agencies through other sources. With the City of Torrance serving as lead agency for this project, Beach Cities WMG has executed a cost sharing MOU to jointly fund the matching design and construction costs not covered by the grant funding. The MOU details each city’s share of the project’s preliminary engineering and final design cost and will be amended following final design to apportion construction costs. This joint project has also been submitted for FY2122 Safe Clean Water Regional Program Infrastructure funding for construction. The Beach Cities WMG members are committed to developing feasibility studies and project concepts for regional projects to be eligible for SCW infrastructure funding and to be competitive for grant funding. The City of Torrance has funded the design of the Torrance Basins Expansion Regional Project with a completed preliminary engineering and feasibility study and final design now underway. The City of Manhattan Beach has funded the preliminary engineering and feasibility study of the Manhattan Beach 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration Project. The Beach Cities WMG members also plan to leverage the SCW Regional funding with the Municipal Returns to construct and maintain capital projects. The County of Los Angeles is leading the Alondra Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture Project and has completed a preliminary design report and feasibility study for the project and was awarded $30 million in SCW Infrastructure funding and $2.1 million in Prop 1 Stormwater Grant funding for design and construction, while Caltrans is proposing to contribute $15 million. The remaining $13 million in capital costs needed for the project is being provided by the County of Los Angeles. However, financial contributions and partnerships are being solicited from the tributary agencies including the Cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach, if they should desire to obtain additional capture volume credits above their baseline allocation. In addition, each City in the Beach Cities WMG is committed to the pursuit of funding for individual Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-3 | Page 2021 distributed EWMP implementation projects and programs related to water quality improvement within their respective cities, as demonstrated by the following examples: • The City of Hermosa Beach has committed financial support for identifying and implementing strategies for the establishment of sustainable revenue sources to manage stormwater programs and implement water quality improvement projects. In June 2015, the City of Hermosa Beach passed a sanitary sewer fee for residents and commercial property owners to fund maintenance and rehabilitation of its aging sewer infrastructure that had previously been funded from the City’s general fund. This dedicated fee for sanitary sewers will allow the City to redirect part of those general fund dollars for capital improvements and maintenance of the City’s storm drain system, including green street projects. The City won multiple awards for its Pier Avenue green street project and the City recently was awarded funding by the Coastal Conservancy to reconstruct a municipal parking lot to include a suite of storm water BMPs. Additionally, the City recently completed the Hermosa Beach 8th Street Improvement Project, which includes multi-benefit improvements along 8th Street between Valley Drive and Hermosa Avenue. • The City of Manhattan Beach is committed to implementing its Green Street Policy for capital improvement projects in the public right-of-way, has established a minimum runoff capture design goal for such projects, and will also use the EWMP to identify opportunities for green street BMP retrofits in high priority areas. The City is also currently in the process of updating its Storm Drain Master Plan, which will identify locations for multi-benefit projects to facilitate compliance with the MS4 Permit. City staff has an excellent track record and appreciates the support of its Council in the pursuit of funding for and implementation of green infrastructure as evidenced by two previous example projects: a 130,000 square feet porous concrete paving project on seven municipal parking lots, and the Greenbelt Infiltration Project installed within the linear greenbelt parkland. The City is currently pursuing regional project funding for the Manhattan Beach Infiltration Project at 28th Street via the Safe, Clean Water Regional Program. • The City of Redondo Beach’s green streets policy requires green street BMPs to be integrated with capital improvement projects (CIPs), thereby ensuring that BMPs be funded as part of ongoing and future CIPs. An example of this policy is the Redondo Beach Street Rehabilitation Project, which includes several street rehabilitation projects that include green street features such as porous gutters and crosswalks and drywells. Four of these street rehabilitation projects were completed during the 2019-2020 reporting year, addressing a combined 22 acres of green street target land use area within the Beach Cities WMG’s high priority Herondo watershed (SMB 6-1 analysis region). The City also incorporates the required addition of catch basin trash screening devices into street resurfacing projects such as the Esplanade Street Resurfacing Project. In addition, the City has a successful track record of pursuing and implementing water quality improvements grant funding such as the Alta Vista Diversion and Re-use Project and the Sapphire Storm Drain Diversion and Infiltration Project. • The City of Torrance has appropriated funding for retrofit of 3% of catch basin BMPs in the Dominguez Channel Watershed and appropriated annual funding to complete their trash Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-4 | Page 2021 management and reporting plan (TMRP) implementation by the end of 2016 (four years ahead of the total maximum daily load [TMDL] compliance deadline). In addition, the City’s green streets policy requires green street BMPs to be integrated with street improvement CIPs. The City of Torrance has an established record for pursuing grant funds for Storm Water Quality Projects. Completed projects include Bioswales for City Yard ($150,000 State grant funds), Machado Lake Trash TMDL Project ($1,000,000 State grant funds), and the Stormwater Basin Enhancement Project ($3,300,000 State grant funds and $300,000 Federal grant funds). The City is currently pursuing multiple project funding awards via the Safe, Clean Water Regional Program. The foregoing examples illustrate the willingness of Beach Cities’ staff and elected officials to pursue funding for EWMP implementation projects. Additional sources of funding will also continue to be investigated, as described below. MEASURE W (SAFE, CLEAN WATER PROGRAM) Measure W was successfully passed by Los Angeles County voters in November 2018, creating the Safe, Clean Water Program to provide local, dedicated funding for stormwater and urban runoff to increase local water supply, improve water quality, and protect public health within the Los Angeles Basin. The program currently generates approximately $285 million per year. The majority of this funding goes directly back to the cities via two programs: • The Municipal Program - 40% of the annual revenue goes directly to cities via the Municipal Program, with city-specific revenue proportional to the revenues generated within its boundaries. The Municipal Program funding can be used for eligible activities such as project development, design, construction, effectiveness monitoring, operations and maintenance (including operation and maintenance of projects built to comply with the MS4 Permit), as well as for other programs and studies related to protecting and improving water quality in lakes, rivers, and the ocean. The total annual municipal revenue projected for the Beach Cities WMG is approximately $3.4M. • The Regional Program – 50% of the annual revenue is divided across nine watershed areas (including the South Santa Monica Bay Watershed Area, which includes the Beach Cities Area), and is devoted to funding regional watershed-based projects, project concepts, and scientific studies. The South Santa Monica Bay Watershed Area is estimated to receive up to $18.4 million annually to fund regional projects and programs. Funding for multi-benefit regional projects includes design, permits, CEQA compliance, grant-writing, right-of-way and land acquisition, construction, and long-term operations and maintenance of the facilities. To apply for regional infrastructure funds, a Safe, Clean Water Feasibility Study is required to be submitted to the local Watershed Area Steering Committee (WASC) for evaluation. The WASC, comprised of representatives from cities, agencies, and community stakeholders, reviews proposed projects and develops an annual Stormwater Investment Plan (SIP) for their Watershed Area that identifies recommendations for funding. Recommended projects included in SIPs will also be reviewed by a Scoring Committee and ultimately a Regional Oversight Committee for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-5 | Page 2021 The process to receive regional funding is competitive, as numerous projects across entire watershed areas are considered. However, funding is significant, consistent, and flexible to be spent on all phases of qualifying stormwater infrastructure projects. The Safe, Clean Water Program is therefore the primary funding mechanism the Beach Cities WMG will pursue to fund their various projects. GRANT OPPORTUNITIES Grants have historically been a backbone for financing stormwater projects. The majority of water-related grants are designated for flood control, drinking water, and watershed protection and most recent grants have preferences for projects that benefit underserved communities; very few grants are made available for the sole purpose of stormwater permit compliance. In order to increase the likelihood of successful grant funding, a stormwater project might need to be added to a larger project or program that serves different purposes and has different objectives rather than just for stormwater management. Thus, collaboration and coordination between stormwater agencies and other public agencies is important to increase accessible grant funding opportunities for stormwater projects. Recent Federal infrastructure funding may expand the opportunities for grants and debt forgiveness loans. H.R. 1319 entitled “The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021” is primarily a COVID relief bill, but includes funding for water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure. This legislation does not distinguish stormwater as separate from water. This bill has been passed by both houses and signed into law by the President. The funds have been both authorized and appropriated and are currently being transferred to municipal governments. The funds can also be used by special districts, such as water and sewer districts. S. 914 entitled “Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021” reauthorizes both the Drinking Water SRF and Clean Water SRF programs at current levels with annual increases through 2026. It also reauthorizes the WIFIA funding at current levels through 2026. This bill has passed the Senate and appears to have sufficient support to pass the House and be signed into law by the President. While this bill authorizes the funding through 2026, it does not appropriate the funds. The funds will be appropriated on an annual basis through the regular annual federal budget appropriations. Many grant funds do not cover 100% of the project costs, but instead, cost sharing from local governments (as much as 50%) is required under grant provisions. Furthermore, grants typically cover only project capital costs, but do not provide funding to cover ongoing operations and maintenance, and replacement costs of the infrastructure. Thus, alternative funding sources would be needed to provide stable O&M revenues as well as costs for replacement for implemented projects. Table G-2 presents some potential grant opportunities available that the Beach Cities can apply to fund the EWMP projects.1 1 Some information in Table G-2 has not been updated due to a lack of update to relevant websites. This is not surprising in light of the global COVID-19 pandemic that is still ongoing. All the information presented in Table G-2 is subject to change. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-6 | Page 2021 The Beach Cities WMG has expressed commitment to pursue grant opportunities. Numerous grants have been sought in the past by the Group, including multiple Prop 1 Coastal Conservancy grants, a Prop 68 Urban Flood Protection grant, Prop 12 Coastal Santa Monica Bay Restoration Grant funding by the California Coastal Conservancy, and multiple rounds of Prop 1 Stormwater Grant funding. Since SB-985-Stormwater Resource Planning became effective in 2014, local governments have been required to develop a stormwater resource plan and be in compliance with provisions of SB-985 in order to receive grants for stormwater and dry-weather runoff capture projects from a bond act approved by the voters after January 1, 2014. In 2017, the Group received approval that the Beach Cities EWMP serves as a functionally equivalent stormwater resources plan. See Appendix H for related details. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-7 | Page 2021 Table G-2. Relevant Grant Opportunities Program Department Purpose Ineligible Uses Funding Limits WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants US Bureau of Reclamation Projects should seek to conserve and use water more efficiently, increase the use of renewable energy, mitigate conflict risk in areas at a high risk of future water conflict, facilitate water markets, or carry out other activities to address climate related impacts on water or prevent any water-related crisis or conflict. Normal operations, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R). OM&R is described as system improvements that replace or repair existing infrastructure or function without providing increased efficiency or effectiveness of water distribution over the expected life of the improvement. Construction of a building. FY 2021 Funding is awarded at one of two levels: Funding Group I: Up to $500,000 per agreement for a project up to 2 years. Funding Group II: Up to $2,000,000 for an agreement for up to 3 years for a small number of projects. WaterSMART: Cooperative Water Management Program (CWMP) Grants US Bureau of Reclamation The purpose is to improve water quality and ecological resilience and to reduce conflicts over water through collaborative conservation efforts in the management of local watersheds. CWMP provides funding to watershed groups to encourage diverse stakeholders to form local solutions to address their water management needs. Funding is provided on a competitive basis for: 1) watershed group development and watershed restoration planning, and 2) implementation of watershed management projects. Please visit the following website for evaluation criteria: http://www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART/cwmp/docs/ CWMPEvaluationCriteria.pdf Phase I funds shall be used to establish or enlarge a watershed group, to develop a mission statement for the watershed group, to develop project concepts, and to develop a restoration plan. Phase II funds shall be used to plan and carry out watershed management projects. Phase III funds shall be used to plan and carry out at least one watershed management project. IRWM Implementation Program Proposition 84 (Chapter 2, §75026) Department of Water Resources Award funds for implementation of projects consistent with IRWM Plans to assist local public agencies in meeting long-term water management and resilience needs of the state, including the delivery of safe drinking water, and protection of water quality and the environment. Operation and maintenance activities Bond funding allocation for entire program is $1 billion. Prop 84 allots grant funding to 11 funding areas defined by the hydrologic regions of the state. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-8 | Page 2021 Program Department Purpose Ineligible Uses Funding Limits Flood Corridor Program Propositions 1E, 84 and 13 Department of Water Resources Flood risk reduction through non-structural projects that include wildlife habitat enhancement and/or agricultural land preservation components Flood protection projects that do not include wildlife habitat enhancement or agricultural land preservation benefits $5 million per eligible project. 10% non-state, non-federal cost share required; may be reduced to 5% or no-cost share if serving disadvantaged or severely disadvantaged community Flood Control Subventions Program Propositions 1E and 84 Department of Water Resources Implementation of federally authorized flood control projects (minor or major) and Watershed Protection Flood Prevention Projects Flood control projects without federal authorization Variable state cost-share percentage based on multipurpose objectives for projects, ranging from a minimum of 50% to a maximum of 70% Statewide Flood Emergency Response Program Proposition 84 Department of Water Resources Preparing or updating local emergency plan; Coordinating flood emergency planning and preparedness (including training & exercise); Developing communication & coordination response process; Collecting & exchange of flood information; Purchase & installing equipment for interoperable emergency communication. Projects not included in guidelines. Projects in the Legal Delta. $10 million for Statewide (outside the legal Delta) for Prop 84. California Coastal Conservancy, Prop 1 ($100.5 million allocated) California Coastal Conservancy Funding for multi-benefit water quality, water supply, and watershed protection and restoration projects. Projects that do not comply with the Proposition 1 Grant Program Guidelines. Projects that use potable water for irrigation. O&M projects are not eligible. $10 million per year grants will be made available over the next 10 years. Storm Water Grant Program, Prop 1 ($200 million), approved as part of the Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act (2014). State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards Funding for multi-benefit storm water management projects which will improve regional water self-reliance, security, and adapt to the effects on water supply arising from climate change. Projects that 1) must seek eminent domain as part of their project implementation timeline; 2) do not meet the requirements of the Prop 1 Storm Water Grant Program Guidelines, the Storm Water Resources Plan Guidelines, Water Code, and Prop 1; 3) consist of only education and outreach activities. Planning projects: min. $50K and max. $500K; Implementation projections: min. $250K and max. $10M. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-9 | Page 2021 PROJECT-SPECIFIC INTERAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS Stormwater management projects often overlap with the jurisdiction of other public agencies, including water and transportation agencies, as well as parks and schools. Interagency partnerships would not only allow agencies involved to leverage one another’s available funding resources to make cost intensive projects possible but would also improve local government funding efficiency. These types of interagency partnership projects could also optimize the potential social, environmental, and economic benefits provided to the community. An interagency partnership also provides an alternative avenue for stormwater agencies to access to grant funding that would otherwise not be available to them. In addition to the above benefits, a partnership with public utility agencies, such as water and refuse collection services, might also provide a mechanism for cost transfer from stormwater agencies to these agencies. For example, the use of stormwater for non-potable water may conserve drinking water. The cost for providing the infrastructure and the ongoing O&M could be partly funded through fees charged by water agencies as part of their cost for water conservation. Table G-3 provides a list of potentially viable partnerships and the benefits derived from management of stormwater runoff. Table G-3. Added Benefits of Interagency Partnership for Stormwater Management Potential Partners Benefits Derived from Stormwater Management Flood control district • Flood protection • Climate change mitigation Caltrans • Surface water pollution prevention • Increased project siting opportunities in transportation corridors Water agencies • Potable water conservation through stormwater use for non-potable water purposes • Surface water pollution prevention • Increase non-potable water storage through installation of underground cisterns Parks, Coastal Commission • Terrestrial and marine habitat protection by reducing trash from entering the ocean and other terrestrial habitats • Water pollution prevention • Erosion reduction LOCAL BOND ISSUANCE Bonds have been utilized by local governments to provide funding for stormwater projects. There are two types of bonds that can be utilized. One of them is GO bonds. GO bonds are issued by local governments, which are repaid through a tax surcharge (e.g., property). The City of Los Angeles, for example, has used GO bonds to fund their stormwater projects. The City sold $440 million GO bonds under Proposition O Clean Water Bonds. The bond proceeds were used for implementation of 39 projects but could not be used for ongoing maintenance, operations, and replacement of these facilities (Farfsing and Watson, 2014). The challenge of utilizing GO bonds is that GO bond issuance and the amount to be issued must be approved by two-third of the voters. The main drawback of election approval requirement is that the cost of holding an election can be high and the chance of success is often unpredictable. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-10 | Page 2021 The last decade has seen the emergence of a new category of bonds generically called “green” bonds. A green bond is a type of fixed-income instrument that is specifically earmarked to raise money for climate and environmental projects. These bonds are typically asset-linked and backed by the issuing entity's balance sheet, so they usually carry the same credit rating as their issuers’ other debt obligations. Green bonds are designated bonds intended to encourage sustainability and to support climate-related or other types of special environmental projects. More specifically, green bonds finance projects aimed at energy efficiency, pollution prevention, sustainable agriculture, fishery and forestry, the protection of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, clean transportation, clean water, and sustainable water management. They also finance the cultivation of environmentally friendly technologies and the mitigation of climate change. Green bonds come with tax incentives such as tax exemption and tax credits, making them a more attractive investment compared to a comparable taxable bond. These tax advantages provide a monetary incentive to tackle prominent social issues such as climate change and a movement to renewable sources of energy. To qualify for green bond status, they are often verified by a third party such as the Climate Bond Standard Board, which certifies that the bond will fund projects that include benefits to the environment. Another type of bonds that can be used at the local level is revenue bonds. Revenue bonds are tax-exempt securitized bonds that are issued by utility agencies, such as water agencies. These bonds are repaid through utility rate increases charged directly to customers. Recent enactment of AB-850-Public Capital Facilities: Water Quality allows local publicly owned water agencies to finance water quality and water conservation related projects by issuance of revenue bonds through a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). Under the provisions of AB-850, water agencies are allowed to use the bond proceeds to pay for construction, repair, maintenance, and operations of eligible projects. Both stormwater capture and water quality compliance projects are considered as eligible projects that can be financed through bond issuance under the AB-850 mechanism. Additionally, AB-850 authorizes water agencies to repay these bonds through water utility rate increases – the same way as other revenue bonds not issued under the SB-850 mechanism by water agencies. Such rate increases are also subject to Proposition 218 approval under the exempt category (i.e., only a public hearing is required). SB-628–Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFD) will allow issuance of general obligation bonds within the EIFD inside a city or a county. The Bill authorizes a legislative body to establish an enhanced infrastructure financing district, adopt an infrastructure financing plan, and issue bonds upon approval by 55% of the voters to finance public capital facilities such as collection and treatment of water for urban uses and flood control projects. Under the provisions of SB-628, a City or a County can establish an EIFD of any size. If a defined EIFD has fewer than 12 registered voters, only a protest hearing is required to be conducted for landowners. The number of votes that each landowner gets will depend on the size of the land they own. The ballot will specify a vote per acre or a portion of an acre. The bonds issued under this bill will be repaid through property tax increase (i.e. tax increment financing). The district will cease to exist in no more than 45 years from the date on which bond issuance is approved. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-11 | Page 2021 STATE REVOLVING FUNDS The Clean Water Act (CWA) provided for the creation of Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program capitalized by federal and state funds which in turn provides municipalities with a permanent source of low-cost financing for a range of water quality infrastructure projects. The California CWSRF program is administered by the State Water Resource Control Board, Division of Financial Assistance.2 The “Policy for Implementing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund,”3 amended in 2019, provides guidance for applying for financial assistance from the CWSRF program and each year an “Intended Use Plan”4 is drafted to provide information about the current financing terms and fund availability. The CWSRF finances water quality projects similar to those proposed in the EWMP, including nonpoint source, watershed protection or restoration, and estuary management projects (USEPA, 2014). The main advantage of CWSRF is that their interest rates are typically much lower than market rates (e.g. 3% for a 20-year loan instead of 6%). The loans are project-specific and can serve as a good financial resource for funding project design and construction. The CWSRF program loans carry an interest rate set at one-half of the most recent state GO bond rate at time of funding approval and repayment begins one year after completion of construction with a term of up to 30 years or the useful life of the project. There is no maximum funding limit, but partial funding may be applied based on funds availability and the applicant’s ability to repay. Loan forgiveness is available via subsidy of up to 50% of eligible capital costs and 75% of eligible planning costs, up to a total cap of $4 million, through the Green Project Reserve (GPR). Congress’ intent in enacting the GPR is to direct State investment practices in the water sector to guide funding toward projects that utilize green or soft-path practices to address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities.5 The GPR sets a new precedent for the SRFs by targeting funding towards green infrastructure and water quality projects that states may not have funded in prior years. Any project eligible for GPR funding must also qualify for the CWSRF program. Access to the State Revolving Funds is limited by the agencies’ ability to borrow due to repayment of other debt obligations (e.g. lease burden). It has been reported that a typical median net lease burden for a California county is 1.7% of general fund revenues while the total burden of lease and General Fund obligations is 1.9% (Moody, 2012). Loan repayment will require alternative funding sources if reliance on general fund resources is not an option. A CWSRF program loan application consists of four packages - the General Information Package, the Technical Package, the Environmental Package, and the Financial Security Package. The application packages are submitted online via the Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool (FAAST).6 When the General Information Package is submitted, a project manager will contact and support the 2 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/srf/ 3 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/services/funding/documents/srf/dwsrf_policy/final_policy_1219.pdf 4 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/grants_loans/docs/cwsrf_iup_sfy2020_21_final.pdf 5 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents/green_project_reserve_eligibility_guidance.pdf 6 https://faast.waterboards.ca.gov Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-12 | Page 2021 applicant through the remaining steps of the application process. All submitted projects are evaluated annually to identify eligibility and receive a priority score for placement on the Fundable List. LOCAL PUBLIC FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES Stormwater charges are potentially the most critical local funding source to finance stormwater programs in California. These charges include stormwater fees and taxes, as well as other funds generated through general obligation and revenue bond issuance. Table G-4 provides an overview of potential local funding sources that may be utilized to provide funds to finance stormwater programs. An important factor to consider when utilizing these funding mechanisms is the respective approval mechanisms as discussed below. Table G-4. Local Funding Opportunities Fees Taxes Bonds • Fixed and volumetric service fees • Property assessments or fees • Developer fees or connection fees (a one-time fee) • Permitting fees General taxes • Property, sales, and other activities Special taxes • Parcel taxes to pay for flood protection, stormwater management, watershed protection • Sales tax add-ons • Transient Occupancy Tax to pay for creeks restoration and water quality improvement projects General bonds • Repaid through a property tax surcharge Revenue bonds • Issued by local utilities (e.g. water) • Repaid by service fees, developer fees, plus occasional special taxes Local funding opportunities presented in Table G-4 are subject to approval mechanisms that can vary from holding a written protest hearing to an election, depending on the type of funding sought after (Table G-5). The types of charges that are deemed to be most suitable for stormwater-related services are property-related fees. For a property-based, flood control-related stormwater management fee, an election is required to be conducted under the provisions of Proposition 218. However, there are two categories under Proposition 218 that are exempt from the election approval requirements. They are water-related and refuse collection services. Although there are differing legal opinions on the matter, the approval of AB2403 has extended the definition of water in Proposition 218 to include stormwater capture projects for infiltration and direct non-potable uses, which means that these projects may be exempt from the election requirement under Proposition 218. Even with the extended definition of water in the California Constitution, the existing form of Proposition 218 still requires voter approval for stormwater fees which has limited stormwater agencies’ ability to generate sufficient revenue to support stormwater projects related to permit compliance. Given the existing unique regulatory framework and limitation of Proposition 218, some local governments have broken down the stormwater revenue requirements by functions instead of a single property-related fee. Some of them have utilized the exempt category under Proposition 218 to fund stormwater projects with success. The Cities of Signal Hill, Poway, and Solana Beach, for example, have utilized a surcharge on trash collection fees to cover the some of the cost for Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-13 | Page 2021 stormwater-related trash collection and management. A surcharge on water utility fees has also been used by the Cities of Del Mar, Oceanside, and Solana Beach to provide funding to fund stormwater operation as part of the drinking water pollution prevention effort (Farfsing and Watson, 2014). Pollution prevention is an important component in stormwater management. Given that majority of the pollutants in stormwater runoff originate from vehicles, some local governments have used other non-property-related surcharges to provide funding for stormwater programs. For example, the Orange County Transportation Authority has used the County’s sales tax to provide some funding for a water quality improvement and environmental cleanup program. The San Mateo County has also added a surcharge on the vehicle license fee to provide funding for their stormwater pollution management program. It is also foreseeable that pollutant specific, such as a TMDL-related fee could be established to provide funding for TMDL compliance related programs in the future. In addition to fees that provide steady revenue, another possible revenue source would be to charge fines to property owners that violate discharge limits (volumetric- or TMDL-based). Fines are not considered as a stable financial income; however, they discourage behavior or practices that will lead to non-compliance. Furthermore, fines are exempt from election requirements under Proposition 26 and have been commonly used by water agencies to discourage excessive water consumption behavior. The use of fines under Proposition 26 as a financial instrument to management stormwater discharge in urban areas is still uncommon but might worth exploring. Table G-5. Local Funding Approval Mechanisms Proposition 13 (1978) Proposition 218 (1996) Proposition 26 (2010) General taxes Flexible Simple majority for cities and counties, not available to special districts (rules from the earlier proposition remain in place) General Obligation Bonds Two-thirds of local voters Two-thirds of local voters Two-thirds of local voters Special taxes Two-thirds of local voters (rules from the earlier proposition remain in place) (rules from the earlier proposition remain in place) Property taxes 1% of purchase price + 2% annual increases (rules from the earlier proposition remain in place) (rules from the earlier proposition remain in place) Property- related fees and assessments Flexible 1. All water-related and refuse collection services: strict cost-of-service requirements 2. All water-related and refuse collection services: property-owner protest hearing 3. Floods and stormwater: 50% of property owners or two-third popular vote (rules from the earlier proposition remain in place) Non- property- related fees Flexible Flexible Stricter requirements (more likely to be a tax) Wholesale fees Flexible Flexible Stricter cost-of-service requirements Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-14 | Page 2021 PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Public private partnerships (P3) can be achieved through two approaches. The conventional approach will involve having the private partner to undertake design and construction, and sometimes even operation and maintenance of the facilities. The private partner will recover the cost plus their return-on-investment through a guaranteed revenue stream (e.g. a user fee) over a long period (e.g. 30- 40 years). The main advantage of such an approach is that the upfront financing costs are provided through the private partner while the project performance is guaranteed by the private partner. Also, P3 can be utilized when agencies have restrictions on the amount of debt that they can carry (e.g. agencies want to maintain low lease burden or have high lease burden). Potential cost saving can be achieved through higher financial efficiency during project implementation phase. P3 can also expedite project implementation by simplifying administrative procedures for financing as well as eliminating the need for tendering. The main challenge for implementation of P3 is to get voters to approve a longer revenue stream to repay the private partner. The amendment of Proposition 218 is expected to lower such hurdle for providing such a revenue stream. The second P3 approach is through direct financial subsidies to local projects that do not contribute to cash revenue generation. However, subsidies can create a financial incentive to encourage local participation without providing the full cost for project implementation. Such an approach can increase financial efficiency by leveraging financial input from communities. A list of cities that utilize financial subsidies to maximize their local stormwater capture capacity is provided in Table G-6. Based on these examples presented in Table G-6, subsidies can be given out in forms of 1) rebates per project with caps for stormwater runoff reduction projects, 2) rebate per rain barrel or cistern, 3) rebate per parcel, 4) stormwater fee reduction, and 5) cost sharing. Among all the runoff capture subsidy programs listed in Table G-6, the approach adopted by the City and County of San Francisco is considered as the most progressive. The City and County adopted the onsite Water Reuse for Commercial, Multi-family, and Mixed-Use Development Ordinance which amended the San Francisco Health Code to allow for the collection, treatment, and use of alternative water sources (including stormwater runoff) for non-potable applications. The City and County has since developed a Non-potable Water Program that allows commercial, mixed use, and multifamily residential property owners to collect, treat and reuse water from various sources onsite, including stormwater runoff. The Program also allows the property owners to act as local non-potable water suppliers to provide non-potable water to buildings in the vicinity. Property owners or developers are required to comply with stringent monitoring and reporting requirements for 10 years in order to maintain such privilege. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) has created a grant assistant program that provides up to $250,000 for single building projects and up to $500,000 for district-scale projects meeting specific eligibility criteria to encourage participation. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-15 | Page 2021 Table G-6. Select Cities that Subsidize Private Stormwater Infrastructure Reference Runoff Reduction Runoff Capture and Use San Francisco, CA (SFPUC, 2015) Grants • Up to $30,000 with 35% match requirement • Up to $100,000 with 25% match requirement Grants (treatment is required) • Up to $250,000 for single building projects • Up to $500,000 for district-scale projects Palo Alto, CA (City of Palo Alto, 2015) Rebates • Permeable pavement, ≤ $1,000 at $1.5/sq. ft. • Green roofs, ≤ $1,000 at $1.5/sq. ft. Rebates (roof runoff) • Rain barrel $50 each • Cisterns ≤ $1,000 at $1.50/sq. ft. Seattle, WA (Seattle Public Utilities, 2015) • Rebates for onsite facility installation, e.g. rain garden • Stormwater drainage fee reduction • Rebates for onsite facility installation, e.g. cistern (Roof runoff) • Stormwater drainage fee reduction Montgomery County, MD (County of Montgomery, 2015) Rebates • Residential, ≤ $2,500 per parcel • Commercial, ≤ $10,000 per parcel Rebates (roof runoff) • Residential, ≤ $2,500 per parcel • Commercial, ≤ $10,000 per parcel Washington, D.C. (Washington D.C., 2015) Residential rebates Trees, ≤ $50 or $100 per tree Pervious surface, ≤ $2,500 at $1.25/sq. ft. All customers: Provide ≤55% stormwater fee discount Residential rebates (roof runoff) Cisterns, ≤ $500 at $1/gallons All customers: Provide ≤55% stormwater fee discount REFERENCES California Financing Coordinating Committee (CFCC), 2015. 2015 Funding Fairs Handbook. California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2015. Vision and Strategic Actions for Managing Stormwater in the 21st Century (Version 1). January. City of Palo Alto, 2015. Innovative Stormwater Measures Rebate Program. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/stormwater/rebates/default.asp) County of Montgomery, 2015. RainScapes Rewards Rebate Program. Environmental Protection. County of Montgomery, MD. (http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DEP/water/rainscapes-rebates.html) Farfsing and Watson, 2014. Stormwater Funding Options – Providing Sustainable Water Quality Funding in Los Angeles County. League of California Cities, Los Angeles County Division and California Contract Cities Association. October. LADWP, 2015. Authorization to Establish a Joint Powers Authority for Water Financing. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. [http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2015/15-0148_misc_02-05-2015.pdf] Public Policy Institute of California (PICC), 2014. Paying for Water in California. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix G | Financial Strategy G-16 | Page 2021 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), 2015. San Francisco’s Non-potable Water Program. A Guidebook for Implementing Onsite Water Systems in the City and County of San Francisco. City and County of San Francisco, CA. Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), 2015. RainWise Rebates for Cisterns and Rain Gardens. WA. (http://www.seattle.gov/util/environmentconservation/projects/drainagesystem/greenstormwaterinfrastructure/rainwise/rebates/) USEPA, 2013b. The Importance of Operation and Maintenance for the Long-Term Success of Green Infrastructure. A Review of Green Infrastructure O&M Practices in ARRA Clean Water State Revolving Fund Projects. Office of Water. United State Environmental Protection Agency. PA-832-R-12-007. USEPA, 2014. Developing an Outreach Strategy. July 1. (http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/npdes/swbmp/Developing-an-Outreach-Strategy.cfm) Washington D.C., 2015. RiverSmart Rebates. District Department of the Environment. Washington D.C. (http://ddoe.dc.gov/riversmartrebates) Beach Cities Watershed Management Group Revised EWMP Appendix H: Community Involvement for EWMP Implementation JUNE 2021 Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Community Participation H-1 | Page 2021 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BEACH CITIES EWMP INTRODUCTION As part of a previous Prop 1 Stormwater Implementation Grant application, the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (Beach Cities WMG) submitted the required checklist and self-certification to the State Water Resources Control Board Department of Financial Assistance (SWRCB DFA) staff to demonstrate that the Beach Cities EWMP, in combination with several other existing documents, is functionally equivalent to a Storm Water Resource Plan (SWRP) consistent with the SWRP Guidelines.1 The original checklist and self-certification is attached herein. SWRCB DFA staff reviewed the checklist and identified one item in the checklist, Item #44, that required further revision in order for the Beach Cities SWRP to receive approval as functionally equivalent. Item #44 of the checklist addresses the Water Code Section 10562(b)(4) requirement to include community participation during plan implementation. The SWRP Guidelines provide the following guidance statement with respect to the mandatory statutory requirement to provide for community participation in plan development and implementation [California Water Code 10562(b)(4)]: To maximize community-based benefits, key stakeholders and the public should be involved in all appropriate implementation steps of the Storm Water Resource Plan. Public education and opportunities for public participation in actions, decisions, and projects implemented through watershed-based storm water management should be provided. SWRCB DFA staff requested the Beach Cities checklist and SWRP be revised to incorporate its plan for community participation during implementation of the SWRP. Accordingly, this memorandum was drafted to provide additional documentation on that element of the Beach Cities SWRP. As described in more detail below, the Beach Cities SWRP includes community participation on both the regional and local scale. INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN The Greater Los Angeles County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (GLAC IRWMP) is a collaborative effort to identify and implement water management solutions on a regional scale that increase regional self-reliance, reduce conflict, and manage water to concurrently achieve social, environmental, and economic objectives on a regional scale. The GLAC IRWMP crosses jurisdictional, watershed and political boundaries; involves many agencies, stakeholders, individuals and groups; and attempts to address the issues and differing perspectives of all the entities involved through mutually beneficial solutions. The GLAC IRWMP is a multi-year effort among water retailers, 1 SWRCB, 2015. Storm Water Resource Plan Guidelines, December 15, 2015. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Community Participation H-2 | Page 2021 wastewater agencies, stormwater and flood managers, watershed groups, the business community, tribes, agriculture and non-profit stakeholders. The GLAC IRWMP provides a mechanism for: 1) coordinating, refining, and integrating existing planning efforts within a comprehensive, regional context; 2) identifying specific regional and watershed-based priorities for implementation projects; and 3) providing funding support for the plans, programs, projects, and priorities of existing agencies and stakeholders. There are twelve (12) EWMPs and seven (7) individual Watershed Management Programs (WMPs) developed under the LA MS4 Permit that lie within the GLAC IRWM region. These EWMPs and WMPs have been incorporated into the GLAC IRWM and as such the GLAC IRWM provides a successful framework for reaching stakeholders and the public in implementing the programs and projects in the EWMPs and WMPs. By including the EWMPs and WMPs under the umbrella of the GLAC IRWMP, the region enjoys a unified approach in engaging the public in developing water projects for water quality, supply, habitat and recreation. The EWMP prepared by the Beach Cities WMG and approved by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board is one of the EWMPs incorporated into the GLAC IRWMP. In addition, regional projects identified in the Beach Cities’ EWMP have been incorporated into the GLAC IRWMP. The GLAC IRWM Governance Structure creates a platform for water agencies, municipalities, environmental organizations and other stakeholder groups to discuss and share stormwater issues and ideas. The GLAC IRWMP meets periodically with stakeholders to discuss regional collaborative efforts, such as those included in the EWMPs. There are also five Subregional Steering Committees which coordinate local outreach efforts and planning, and the Beach Cities EWMP participates in the South Bay Steering Committee. GLAC IRWM outreach activities are posted on the LA Water Plan website (LAWaterPlan.org). The GLAC IRWM includes a Steering Committee dedicated to facilitating and supporting efforts to provide outreach activities to disadvantaged communities. A Disadvantaged Community Coordinator position was created to lead outreach efforts within the GLAC Region. In 2015, the Disadvantaged Community Coordinator led a Water Dialogue speaker series across Los Angeles to initiate discussions on water issues and to educate the public on water policy. The Disadvantaged Community Coordinator also played an active role in shaping legislation and the development of IRWM-related grant programs to maximize disadvantaged community priorities. In 2016, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) released the Final Request for Proposals for the Disadvantaged Community Involvement Program (DACIP). DWR designated $9.8 million of Proposition 1 grant funding for the Los Angeles – Ventura Funding Area. The Purpose of the DACIP is to involve disadvantaged communities and economically distressed areas in the IRWM planning process. The Program seeks to increase understanding of water needs in these areas and develop long-term solutions to address these needs, including developing projects. In 2018, two contracts were awarded to develop community outreach public education materials and broad-based public education campaigns for the Program. MEASURE W (SAFE, CLEAN WATER PROGRAM) The Measure W parcel tax on the impermeable area of private parcels throughout Los Angeles County was successfully passed by Los Angeles County voters in November 2018, creating the Safe, Clean Water Program to provide local, dedicated funding for stormwater and urban runoff to increase local water supply, improve water quality, and protect public health within the Los Angeles Basin. The Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Community Participation H-3 | Page 2021 program currently generates approximately $285 million per year. The majority of this funding goes directly back to the cities via two programs: • The Municipal Program - 40% of the annual revenue goes directly to cities via the Municipal Program, with city-specific revenue proportional to the revenues generated within its boundaries. The Municipal Program funding can be used for eligible activities such as project development, design, construction, effectiveness monitoring, operations and maintenance (including operation and maintenance of projects built to comply with the MS4 Permit), as well as for other programs and studies related to protecting and improving water quality in lakes, rivers, and the ocean. The total annual municipal revenue projected for the Beach Cities WMG is approximately $3.4M. • The Regional Program – 50% of the annual revenue is divided across nine watershed areas (including the South Santa Monica Bay Watershed Area, which includes the Beach Cities Area), and is devoted to funding regional watershed-based projects, project concepts, and scientific studies. The South Santa Monica Bay Watershed Area is estimated to receive up to $18.4 million annually to fund regional projects and programs. Funding for multi-benefit regional projects includes design, permits, CEQA compliance, grant-writing, right-of-way and land acquisition, construction, and long-term operations and maintenance of the facilities. The application process for regional program funds requires both local and regional outreach efforts. First, project development requires significant buy-in from the local community, with a demonstration of outreach efforts and community support as a critical part of the project application score. Second, project applications are submitted to the local Watershed Area Steering Committee (WASC) for evaluation. The WASC, comprised of representatives from cities, agencies, and community stakeholders, reviews proposed projects and develops an annual Stormwater Investment Plan (SIP) for their Watershed Area that identifies recommendations for funding. The review process is a public process, with the general public able to attend meetings and provide comments on considered projects. Recommended projects included in SIPs are also reviewed by a Regional Oversight Committee consisting of LA County Board of Supervisor-appointed subject matter experts for recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. In addition, the WASC includes a Watershed Coordinator who assists the WASC with community and stakeholder education and engagement. Therefore, projects are required to receive region-wide support for successful funding. In addition to the programs listed above, ten percent of the total annual revenue generated from the Safe, Clean Water Program is allocated to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District. The District will oversee capacity building programs including a public education program, local workforce job training, and school education programs: • Public Education Program – LA County’s Water for LA initiative is a trusted resource on all things water to educate the public and foster more sustainable behavior to help ensure the future of the region. Water for LA envisions an LA County where residents understand and nurture their relationship with water – where it comes from, its connection to the rivers and lakes upstream, and how their actions impact their neighbors, region, ocean, and planet. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Community Participation H-4 | Page 2021 • Workforce Training Program – The District will implement a Workforce Training Program that will provide certification classes and vocational training at the community level for the construction, inspection, operation, and maintenance of stormwater management and multi-benefit projects. • School Education Program - The District will develop and implement a School Education Program about the LA County region and its relationship with stormwater. LOCAL COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT In addition to the outreach efforts related to the GLAC IRWM and Safe, Clean Water Program, the Beach Cities WMG conducts several local outreach programs as part of the SWRP implementation. The Beach Cities have established a Memorandum of Understanding for the Administration and Cost Sharing for Coordination and Implementation of the Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP Implementation MOU), which supports the Beach Cities EWMP and drives the EWMP adaptive management process. The CIMP Implementation MOU became effective on April 14, 2016 and was unanimously extended by the Beach Cities WMG for two, 1-year terms. In December 2020, the CIMP MOU was amended to add additional services to the Scope of Services, authorize increased costs, and extend the term through December 31, 2023 with the option to further extend the term by unanimous written concurrence. The CIMP MOU includes funding and scope for watershed coordination activities including a number of tasks that facilitate public education and opportunities for public participation. The watershed coordination scope of work is adjusted annually to best address the watershed needs. The scope for reporting year 2020-2021, for example, included the following relevant tasks that support public education and participation: • Development and implementation of watershed-specific stormwater outreach materials in the form of digital content and print materials for public dissemination. • Coordination and management of monthly WMG meetings. • Representation at Los Angeles Regional Water Board meetings and workshops. • Participation in Regional EWMP and CIMP Coordination meetings on behalf of the WMG. • Assistance with the Adaptive Management Process and updating of the Beach Cities EWMP, which includes public outreach. • Assistance aligning joint projects for funding opportunities such as Safe, Clean Water Regional funding and GLAC IRWMP Prop 1 funding. • Preparation of Watershed Joint Annual Reports to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board evaluating progress toward achievement of the EWMP targets and milestones. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING EWMP DEVELOPMENT The Beach Cities WMG has conducted outreach to engage the public, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board staff, and other interested parties to support EWMP development. Input has been incorporated, as appropriate. These efforts are described in more detail below. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Community Participation H-5 | Page 2021 Public Workshops – Original EWMP. For development of the original EWMP, public workshops were held on May 21, 2014 at the Joslyn Center in Manhattan Beach and on May 27, 2015 at the Redondo Beach Public Library. An informational presentation was provided followed by a question and answer period to encourage stakeholder input. Concerns were noted and considered during EWMP development by the Beach Cities WMG. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The Beach Cities WMG actively participated in the Los Angeles region TAC and applicable subcommittees throughout the EWMP process. LARWQCB Presentations. The Beach Cities WMG presented the proposed RAA approach to LARWQCB staff on April 9 and June 6, 2014. LARWQCB staff provided feedback during these meetings and in general they were supportive of the proposed approach. One additional meeting was held on July 31, 2014 to discuss Torrance-specific matters. In addition, the Beach Cities WMG presented the EWMP and progress on implementation to the LARWQCB in July 2018. Public Website – Revised EWMP. As part of the revision process for the Beach Cities EWMP in 2021, the Beach Cities WMG created a website that highlighted the EWMP update process; provided details for each proposed project; and allowed for public comment to be submitted. The website was launched in May 2021. Public Virtual Webinar – Revised EWMP. The Beach Cities WMG held a public virtual webinar on May 19, 2021 to present the draft Revised EWMP to the Beach Cities communities and receive public input. The webinar was publicized in advance by each of the four Beach Cities. City Council Review and Adoption. The cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance each brought the draft Beach Cities EWMP (2015) and draft revised Beach Cities EWMP (2021) to their respective city councils for consideration and approval to submit to the Regional Board. This process is open to the public, and residents are encouraged and invited to share comments related to the EWMP at these council meetings. Voiced concerns and recommendations were noted and considered for inclusion in the final EWMP and final Revised EWMP. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Separate MOUs will be developed as needed for each joint regional project undertaken by the Beach Cities WMG. These MOUs for cost-sharing of design and construction of regional projects will incorporate public engagement and participation at key points in the project design and construction including: • City Council consideration and approval authorizing implementation of each regional project at award of design contract—City Council meetings are public and also can be viewed through public media feeds; • Development of a CEQA-compliant evaluation of the project; Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Community Participation H-6 | Page 2021 • Public workshops at the preliminary design phase to share project design concepts and solicit public input and participation; • Public groundbreaking event at the start of construction which are publicized via press release • Coordination and outreach to the local community immediately adjacent and others that may be affected during construction of the project • Ribbon cutting at the conclusion of construction which are publicized via press release Currently, multiple regional projects are being planned or developed by the Beach Cities WMG. Many of these projects involve more than one agency. In these cases, the relevant agencies have been coordinating outreach and community engagement efforts. For example, the Beach Cities Green Street Project involves all four Beach Cities. The four cities are coordinating outreach efforts, partnering with a local outreach firm to engage the community via both online and in-person events during project design. In the case of individually implemented EWMP regional projects or distributed projects that do not require an MOU among the EWMP WMG members, the individual agency implementing the project will carry out appropriate public engagement elements for each project. One such multi-benefit regional project underway in the City of Torrance is highlighted below. Torrance Stormwater Basins Enhancement and Expansion Project Following initial enhancements to the Amie, Henrietta, and Entradero Flood Control Basin network completed in 2015, the City of Torrance is moving forward with further improvements to expand the capacity of these basins to fully retain the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm from their combined 1,407-acre tributary area, comprising approximately one half of the tributary area to the Herondo Storm Drain system. The scope of this basin expansion project includes: • Deepening of the existing Henrietta and Entradero Basins to increase storage capacity; • Installation of drywells at Henrietta Basin to improve infiltration; and • Adjustment of pumping levels at Amie Basin to ensure retention of the 85th percentile design storm. The project, which includes additional benefits such as walking trails and educational material, was recently submitted for funding under the Safe Clean Water Program. Preliminary design of the project is currently in process, with an estimated construction completion in 2024 (City of Torrance, 2020a). For the first enhancement project, a community meeting was held prior to design of the project. The project design approach was also presented at the California Storm Water Quality Association conference in September 2014. At the completion of the project, an open house was held for the community on November 7, 2015. Ongoing outreach occurs through monthly docent-led tours of the Henrietta Basin. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Community Participation H-7 | Page 2021 For the current expansion project, the City of Torrance held its first community outreach meeting at Entradero Park on October 10, 2020. Due to COVD-19-related restrictions and concerns, the meeting was safely held outdoors, with mask requirements and social distancing observed. 44 residents were registered as attendants at the meeting, and 23 comment cards were submitted by attendees. Additionally, the City maintains a project-specific website that provides residents with project information and provides direction on how to provide feedback on the project. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND EDUCATION IN STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION The Beach Cities WMG has been implementing a customized, collaborative Public Information and Participation Program (PIPP) consistent with Regional Board staff’s approval of this approach through adaptive management in March 2019. The PIPP has been adapted to address the Beach Cities WMG’s highest water quality priorities and to allow for more effective and targeted distribution of education and outreach materials to Beach Cities residents and businesses. This customized strategy includes the ongoing development of outreach materials promoting behavioral change in the DIY residential community that is a source of targeted pollutants of concern to the Beach Cities WMG and distribution of these materials using multiple methods, such as distribution of print materials at public offices and community events and the use of internet-based platforms. This customized strategy includes a variety of outreach efforts. Examples of the types of outreach methods which have been implemented to engage the public by the Beach Cities WMG members or in partnership with other local agencies are provided below. Environmentally Friendly Landscaping, Gardening and Pest Control webpages The Beach Cities WMG along with the Peninsula WMG, has established and collaboratively maintains and periodically updates Sustainable Gardening and Landscaping and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) webpages to disseminate information on CA friendly landscaping, responsible irrigation, integrated pest management and the proper use and disposal of pesticides and fertilizers. The Beach Cities and Peninsula WMGs contract with the South Bay Environmental Services Center (SBESC) to host these pages on their website: http://www.southbaycities.org/programs/environmentally-friendly-landscaping-gardening-and-pest-control. The South Bay Environmental Services Center (SBESC), a clearinghouse for energy efficiency, water conservation and environmental information. The SBESC is a program of the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, a joint powers authority of 16 cities in the South Bay of Los Angeles along with the County of Los Angeles. The SBESC website is the central place for residents to explore information regarding environmental topics, and their E-newsletter has a circulation of nearly 15,500. The website also promotes visitation of the Beach Cities WMG’s several water-efficient demonstration gardens by listing their location and showcasing photos. Residential Rainwater Harvesting Guide The Beach Cities WMG in partnership with the Peninsula WMG developed the South Bay Homeowner’s Guide to Rainwater Harvesting. The concept and design for the guide were adapted from the City of Los Angeles Rainwater Harvesting Program – A Homeowner’s How-To Guide November 2009 1st Edition, and a similar guide prepared by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Foundation for Culver City. The guide provides an introduction to residential rainwater harvesting and covers the topics of downspout disconnection and redirection to permeable surfaces, rain garden Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Community Participation H-8 | Page 2021 design and installation, selection of appropriate CA friendly plants, and rain barrel installation. The guide also provides a wealth of additional resources for homeowners looking to implement additional rainwater harvesting methods or seeking supplemental information. Multiple stakeholders were engaged in the development of this rainwater harvesting program with multiple city staffs, particularly building officials, as well as Los Angeles County Building & Safety staff involved in reviewing and commenting on the Guide to ensure that it would be consistent with local ordinances and policies. Several opportunities for input were provided and this constructive stakeholder feedback has improved the utility of the Guide. The Guide includes a section on maintenance and incorporates advice on periodic inspection and measures or adjustments to correct common problems. Business Assistance Program for Food Service Establishments and Mobile Businesses The Beach Cities WMG conducts annual inspections of food service establishments during which onsite managers are educated about stormwater and non-stormwater pollution prevention requirements. The managers are advised of opportunities to become certified in one of several environmental certification programs (Bay Foundation Clean Bay Restaurant Certification, Surfrider Ocean Friendly Restaurant Certification, Green Business Certification). The Beach Cities WMG also developed a “Flow on the Go” tip card to distribute to targeted mobile businesses that generate wastewater such as auto detailers, window washers, and pet groomers as potential sources of non-stormwater discharges containing pollutants of concern. The tip card covers site preparation and cleanup, spill prevention and response, storm drain inlet protection, and proper disposal of wastewater. The tip card also encourages the use of dry-cleaning methods and environmentally friendly cleaning products. While this outreach targets the mobile business sector, it will also reach residents and businesses that use these services and educate them on proper BMPs and the importance of proper waste disposal. The tip card was developed for both digital posting to agency websites as well as distribution through code enforcement interactions and at public counters. Ocean Friendly Landscape Workshops West Basin Municipal Water District, in partnership with Surfrider Foundation, provides free Ocean Friendly Landscape workshops for residents within the Beach Cities WMG to help them manage their landscapes more efficiently. The program consists of a classroom presentation along with a hands-on-workshop at a demonstration garden location. Topics covered in the workshops have addressed both stormwater and non-stormwater pollutant source reduction. Residents learn about permeable pavement, drought-tolerant and native plants, proper use of mulch and smart irrigation control equipment. The objective of these workshops is to teach participants to apply methods that will reduce water consumption, runoff, and ocean pollution. As part of the Ocean Friendly Landscape program, West Basin periodically holds weather-based irrigation controller exchange events where customers can attend a 30-minute training on how to install and operate the weather-based irrigation controllers and then trade in their old, inefficient controllers for a new free controller. This program is typically promoted by each of the Beach Cities agencies through their websites and e-distribution channels. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Community Participation H-9 | Page 2021 Rain Barrel Distribution Rain barrel distribution or rebate programs engage and educate the community through active participation in stormwater capture and may serve as a stepping-stone to more significant residential stormwater capture retrofit projects such as downspout disconnection into cisterns or rain gardens. The West Basin Municipal Water District program has distributed free rain barrels to residents within its service district; the program has included a 50-gallon capacity barrel equipped with overflow spout, built-in mosquito screen, and a rain gutter downspout flex arm hose connector. In a separate program, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) has provided $75 rebates to residents within its service district who purchased their own barrels. To date, an estimated total of 1,986 residences have been retrofit with rain barrels in the Beach Cities WMG area. Irrigation Reduction Incentives West Basin Municipal Water District offers a Landscape Irrigation Efficiency Program for large landscape water users (residents and businesses) within its service area, including the Beach Cities WMG members. The program provides outdoor water evaluations which identify leaks, broken sprinklers and pipes, unnecessary runoff, sprinkler controller issues, and other water wasting problems in landscapes. The program includes sprinkler nozzle retrofits and an outdoor water use report complete with recommendations on more efficient outdoor watering habits. The Beach Cities agencies also maintain a number of California Friendly gardens and landscapes located throughout the Beach Cities WMG area that demonstrate to residents the beauty, utility and economy of native and drought-tolerant plants which require less water, fertilizer and pesticides than traditional landscape plantings. Most of these demonstration gardens are also equipped with interpretive signage. The Environmentally Friendly Landscaping, Gardening and Pest Control webpages hosted by the South Bay Environmental Services Center include a page dedicated to highlighting these demonstration gardens. Community Events Each of the Beach Cities typically hosts an annual Coastal Cleanup Day event on its respective beach in partnership with Heal the Bay, the Ocean Conservancy, and the California Coastal Commission. Each agency also hosts at least one other public outreach event each year, such as a household hazardous waste roundup, an Earth Day event or Safety Fair, which provide opportunities to disseminate information about stormwater and urban runoff pollution. Pet Waste Management Outreach The Beach Cities WMG agencies maintain pet waste collection and clean-up stations in each of their respective municipal parks. In addition, the linear greenbelts that serve as jogging/walking paths through the cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach are also equipped with pet waste collection stations, as are The Strands in Hermosa and Manhattan Beach and the Esplanade in Redondo Beach. These pet waste stations serve as a catalyst and reminder for behavior change by pet owners as well as a means of reducing pollutant loading. Small Construction Site BMP Brochure In order to enhance the effectiveness of the Beach Cities WMG agency’s individual construction programs and to provide a comprehensive and uniform set of expectations for building contractors Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Community Participation H-10 | Page 2021 across the EWMP area, the Beach Cities WMG developed a Small Site Construction brochure targeted at contractors working on construction sites less than 1-acre in disturbed area. The brochure is available in both English and Spanish and describes the BMPs required by the MS4 Permit, including an illustration of where and how to deploy these BMPs on a residential construction site. The brochure also includes information regarding material storage and handling as well as spill prevention, clean-up and disposal. Regional Residential and Business Outreach In addition to the development and distribution of outreach materials targeted at the local residential community, the Beach Cities WMG leverages successful existing statewide and regional outreach programs such as the CalRecycle Used Oil and Household Hazardous Waste Program (Used Oil Program) and many additional programs coordinated by the South Bay Environmental Services Center (SBESC) and promoted through SBESC via e-mail blasts to residents and businesses regarding opportunities to learn and become actively involved in water conservation and stormwater pollution prevention. These include Metropolitan Water District California Friendly Landscaping and Turf Removal workshops, Water Replenishment District’s Eco-Friendly Gardener Series, and West Basin water conservation workshops and classes. Beach Cities EWMP | Appendix H | Community Participation H-11 | Page 2021 ATTACHMENT 1 – CHECKLIST AND SELF-CERTIFICATION 65270.00001\34012066.1 1 AMENDMENT TO DISSOLUTION OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, THE CITY OF TORRANCE, AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT RELATED TO DESIGN OF JOINT REGIONAL PROJECTS WITHIN THE SMB 6-01 ANALYSIS REGION OF THE ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (EWMP) FOR THE BEACH CITIES WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP This document (“Amendment to Dissolution of MOU”) memorializes an amendment to the 2020 dissolution of the 2017 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, THE CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH, THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, THE CITY OF TORRANCE, AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF JOINT REGIONAL PROJECTS WITHIN THE SMB 6-01 ANALYSIS REGION OF THE ENHANCED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (“EWMP”) FOR THE BEACH CITIES WATERSHED MANAGEMENT GROUP (“Dissolution of MOU”). Collectively, these entities shall be known herein as “Parties” or individually as “Party”. RECITALS A. In 2020, the Parties entered into the Dissolution of MOU. The purpose of the Dissolution of MOU was expressly stated to “wind down the obligations set forth in the September 26, 2017 cost sharing MOU and to memorialize an understanding of the Parties’ intent to consider implementing a new a joint regional structural project(s) within the SMB 6-01 analysis region of the EWMP Area identified in the EWMP due to the interconnected nature of the MS4, until such time as a new project site or sites are identified and the Parties enter into a new cost- sharing MOU for the project(s) to replace this agreement.” B. Under the Dissolution of MOU, Hermosa Beach committed to, among other things, “fund $160,000 and Redondo Beach [would] manage a feasibility study to identify feasible location(s) for an alternative project or projects in Redondo Beach, and additional alternative location(s) within Hermosa Beach if the project or project locations in Redondo Beach do not feasibly and economically achieve the water quality limits set forth in the MS4 permit, in collaboration with Hermosa Beach staff, subject to the limitation that a project (or projects) in Hermosa Beach shall capture no more than 150% of Hermosa Beach’s contribution to the Herondo Storm Drain (approximately 20.4 %).” C. The EWMP is required to be updated by June 30, 2021. Due to the timeline of this EWMP update, the feasibility study provided for in Section 3 of the Dissolution of MOU was not prepared. In lieu of that feasibility study, the Parties (through their consultant) engaged in analysis of existing data and new modelling, and identified new project options and locations DocuSign Envelope ID: D5B29BF4-4AEE-433C-8AA5-93FEDD7D332C 65270.00001\34012066.1 2 contained in the proposed EWMP update (the Revised EWMP) that were not known at the time the Dissolution of MOU was negotiated. While additional studies may be performed, the Parties agree to remove the extraordinary funding commitment from Hermosa Beach from the Dissolution of MOU in light of the Parties’ decision not to prepare the feasibility study provided for in Section 3 of the Dissolution of MOU prior to preparing the EWMP update. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by the Parties, and of the promises contained in this Amendment to Dissolution of MOU, the Parties agree as follows: Section 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are incorporated into this Amendment to Dissolution of MOU. Section 2. Amendment. The parties agree that the Dissolution of MOU is hereby amended to add the following additional new paragraph 3.h: h. Notwithstanding the terms above, should the parties approve a revised EWMP that has not proceeded under the process detailed above, the City of Hermosa Beach shall be relieved of its obligation to fund the first $160,000 for the feasibility study referenced in subsections b and c above. The Parties will proportionally share the cost of any future feasibility studies related to the EWMP Update in accordance with the Memorandum Of Understanding Between The City Of Redondo Beach, The City Of Hermosa Beach, The City Of Manhattan Beach, The City Of Torrance, And The Los Angeles County Flood Control District Regarding The Administration And Cost Sharing For Updating The Enhanced Watershed Management Program And Reasonable Assurance Analysis For The Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (executed on October 27, 2020). Section 3. The remaining terms of the Dissolution of MOU remain in force and effect, except as modified in this Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment to Dissolution of MOU to be executed by their duly authorized representatives and affixed as of the date of signature of the Parties: [SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW] DocuSign Envelope ID: D5B29BF4-4AEE-433C-8AA5-93FEDD7D332C 65270.00001\34012066.1 3 CITY OF MANHATTAN BEACH By: Date: Bruce Moe City Manager ATTEST: By: Liz Tamura City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Special Counsel DocuSign Envelope ID: D5B29BF4-4AEE-433C-8AA5-93FEDD7D332C 65270.00001\34012066.1 4 CITY OF TORRANCE By: Date: Patrick J. Furey, Mayor ATTEST: By: Rebecca Poirier City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Patrick Q. Sullivan, City Attorney DocuSign Envelope ID: D5B29BF4-4AEE-433C-8AA5-93FEDD7D332C 65270.00001\34012066.1 5 CITY OF REDONDO BEACH By: Date: William C. Brand, Mayor ATTEST: By: Eleanor Manzano City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Mike Webb, City Attorney DocuSign Envelope ID: D5B29BF4-4AEE-433C-8AA5-93FEDD7D332C 65270.00001\34012066.1 6 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH By: Date: Justin Massey Mayor ATTEST: By: Eduardo Sarmiento City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Michael Jenkins, City Attorney DocuSign Envelope ID: D5B29BF4-4AEE-433C-8AA5-93FEDD7D332C 7/1/2021 6167 Bristol Parkway, Suite 390 Culver City, CA 90230 PH 310.957.6100 FAX 310.957.6101 www.geosyntec.com Beach Cities EWMP_Herondo Replacement Projects Feasibility Technical Memorandum Date: October 25, 2021 To: Andrew Winje and Geraldine Trivedi, City of Redondo Beach From: Christopher Wessel, Geosyntec Consultants Subject: Replacement Projects Feasibility Report for the Herondo Subwatershed Geosyntec Project: CWR0645 1 INTRODUCTION The Beach Cities Enhanced Watershed Management Program (EWMP), originally approved in 2016 and last updated in 2019, was required to be revised earlier this year in conformance with the Los Angeles Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit requirements. As was the case in 2016, the revised EWMP was jointly prepared by the Beach Cities Watershed Management Group (Beach Cities WMG) comprised of the Cities of Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance, and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). A critical component to the Updated Beach Cities EWMP was to identify a new suite of projects that would collectively demonstrate compliance with downstream receiving water limitations. Most critically, new projects were needed within the Herondo Drain subwatershed, one of two priority watersheds within the Santa Monica Bay Watershed portion of the Beach Cities Area.1 This urgency was due, in part, to the loss of the Hermosa Greenbelt Infiltration Project, which was identified in the original Beach Cities EWMP (2016) but subsequently removed from consideration as a project due to resident opposition in the City of Hermosa Beach. The loss of this project from consideration required replacement projects within the Herondo Drain subwatershed to be identified that would collectively capture and infiltrate enough stormwater to demonstrate modeled compliance at the subwatershed’s outfall. The Beach Cities WMG subsequently agreed to dissolve the existing Greenbelt Project MOU ("Dissolution MOU") and Hermosa Beach agreed to contribute $160,000 to fund feasibility studies to identify these alternate projects. The Beach Cities WMG was required to submit a Revised EWMP with an updated Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) to the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board by June 30, 2021. The updated RAA is a computer model that incorporated water quality data, control measure performance data, and other relevant information gathered by the Beach Cities WMG through June 30, 2020 to estimate pollutant loads discharged at the various outfalls and to demonstrate how new programs and structural projects could reduce those waste loads to meet MS4 Permit requirements. Critically, given a new emphasis in the LA region on volume reduction as the EWMP compliance metric of choice, the RAA focused on infiltration 1 Along with the 28th St Drain subwatershed in Manhattan Beach, the Herondo Drain subwatershed is considered a priority watershed based on a history of high bacteria levels at the Herondo outfall during wet weather. Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Page 2 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility projects as the most efficient and cost-effective way to reduce pollutant loads sufficiently enough to achieve compliance. Geosyntec began analyzing already-identified “potential” projects within the Herondo Drain subwatershed and worked with the Beach Cities WMG Staff to identify new projects. The feasibility of several replacement project concepts and locations suggested in the Dissolution MOU and others were analyzed in the process of preparation of the revised EWMP and shared with staff working group in the months leading up to the EWMP submittal. Given the contract start time, this process was “fast-tracked,” with the hope of identifying realistic projects by January 2021 so that RAA modeling could begin. In addition, as the screening process advanced, the crystalizing understanding of the superiority and necessity of the selected projects made the need for formal project rankings unnecessary. These superior projects were included in the RAA analysis and described as the WMG’s plan to achieve compliance with the MS4 Permit in the Revised EWMP submittal, which was approved by each participating city through actions of their respective city councils.2 This technical memorandum has been drafted to summarize the screening process used to analyze the feasibility of key projects identified within the Dissolution MOU for the Herondo Drain subwatershed, including projects that were not ultimately utilized, and additional projects that were included in the Updated Beach Cities EWMP. It should be noted that the goal of Geosyntec’s scoped work was to prepare a Revised EWMP submittal that would meet the requirements of the MS4 Permit in an efficient manner, including identification and analysis of feasible replacement project(s) for the Herondo Drain subwatershed. Full exploration of the merits of every suggested project concept and location in the Dissolution MOU was not considered necessary to achieve this objective, particularly within the limits of Geosyntec’s contractual schedule and budget. 2 INITIAL PROJECT SCREENING As a first step in drafting the Updated EWMP and running the RAA for the Herondo Drain subwatershed, Geosyntec analyzed four projects provided in the Group’s Dissolution MOU. 2.1 N. Francisca Avenue Originally identified as a potential alternative location for the Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Project, the N. Francisca Avenue project envisioned an infiltration BMP 3 (or series of BMPs) running the length of N. Francisca Avenue, south of Herondo Street. Like the original Greenbelt concept, water would be diverted from Herondo storm drain, but instead of going north to the greenbelt, it would be directed south to infiltrate under the street. Infiltration BMP types were never specified, but in theory could have included drywells, underground basins, or other similar BMPs. 2 The City Councils of Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, and Torrance all approved the Updated EWMP. The City Council of Hermosa Beach voted to conditionally approve the Updated EWMP pending resolution of non-technical matters between the cities. 3 As used in this context, a BMP, short for best management practice, is a stormwater control measure intended to improve water quality, thereby helping to achieve compliance with regulatory requirements. In this memorandum, BMPs refer to structural improvements. Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Page 3 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility Upon desktop screening and initial field investigation, this site was deemed to have a low likelihood of feasibility for the following reasons: 1. As discussed during the Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Project design phase, liquefaction in the project vicinity was determined to be a significant concern to residents, ultimately influencing the decision to cancel the project. The liquefaction zone potentially affecting the Hermosa Beach Greenbelt extends southward across Herondo Street and along N. Francisca Avenue (Figure 1). Therefore, it was anticipated that similar community concerns may be raised against a project proposed at this location. For this reason, the project was determined to be “very low priority” while other possible projects were explored. 2. A portion of the open space immediately east of N. Francisca Avenue has been identified as an earthquake-induced landslide zone (Figure 1). Therefore, infiltration along N. Francisca Avenue, which is the bottom of the slope of the identified landslide zone, is a potential geotechnical hazard that may preclude infiltration BMPs from being utilized in this area. 3. Depth to groundwater in this area was estimated to be between 10 – 25 ft below ground surface (bgs), based on local groundwater measurements (Figure 2). Two potential constraints were immediately identified as a result of this relatively shallow groundwater: a. Since the invert of the Herondo storm drain is approximately 17 ft bgs near this location, the likelihood of utilizing gravity flow for treatment was very low. As a result of having to introduce pumps into the project design, the cost of the project would be significantly higher than a standard gravity-fed project both upfront (higher capital cost) and in the long- term (higher operations and maintenance costs). When coupled with the relatively small infiltration footprint available in this area (see Point 4 below), the cost effectiveness of this project was immediately determined to be low. b. Infiltration BMPs are generally less effective in shallow groundwater areas due to the fact that there are fewer void spaces available in the soil to fill with infiltrating water. Additionally, infiltrating large volumes of water into shallow groundwater can cause the groundwater table to rise too high in a short amount of time, a geologic condition known as “mounding.” For these reasons, it’s typically advised that there be 10 ft of separation between the bottom of the infiltrating surface and the seasonal high groundwater table.4 Although this separation may exist along N. Francisca Avenue, it was recognized early that the overall effectiveness of an infiltration project in this area would likely be low. 4. Electrical utility conflicts along and across N. Francisca Avenue were recognizably significant. Two powerline easements run perpendicular to and across N. Francisca Avenue south of Herondo Street (Figure 2). Based on discussions with power companies and standard best practices of utility companies, infiltration facilities would likely not be feasible within these easements due to concerns that infiltration would negatively impact utility infrastructure. In addition, smaller power poles were identified along the eastern sidewalk of N. Francisca Avenue. As stated in the Group’s 4 For example, the Los Angeles County Low Impact Development Manual (2014) states, “the depth to groundwater beneath the project site during the wet season may preclude infiltration if less than 10 feet of separation exists between the infiltration surface and the seasonal high groundwater or mounded groundwater levels.” Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Page 4 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility 2016 EWMP, “to alleviate concerns of saturating soils around powerline footings, and to allow for powerline maintenance activities to occur, stormwater facilities should be installed at least 100 feet from any tower and 10 feet from any pole. Special consideration and increased distances may be necessary when working around “dead-end” towers, or towers where transmission lines change direction.” Figure 2 shows the various electrical towers and poles in the site vicinity and the radius of exclusion surrounding each. As shown, there would be significant areas of exclusion for infiltration BMPs along Herondo Street and N. Francisca Avenue. As a result, it was determined that the ability to infiltrate significant stormwater within the vicinity of N. Francisca Avenue was likely very low. 5. Although not mapped, the Southern California Gas (SCG) Company stated that large diameter gas service lines run along N. Francisca Avenue. Field investigations confirmed SCG utility lids along the street. Typically, a minimum 10-foot setback is required from utility service lines such as these. As a result, the ability to implement infiltration BMPs along N. Francisca Avenue was determined to be constrained. In addition to these concerns, it was communicated during a WMG meeting in December 2020 that the N. Francisca Avenue project location should be considered low priority for EWMP inclusion due to significant underground utility constraints; the narrowness of the street, which would lead to a limited effective BMP footprint as well as construction access limitations; and temporarily-impacted access for local businesses that would be caused by the project (Attachment A). As a result of all of these factors, Geosyntec considered N. Francisca Avenue a “very low priority” project, only to be investigated further if alternative projects could not meet the EWMP requirements. 2.2 Perry Allison Park Perry Allison Park (previously known as Park #3) is located within the City of Redondo Beach, northwest of Blossom Ln. and 190th St. The park is small (approximately 0.4 acres), but its proximity to the Herondo storm drain made it a potential location for an infiltration BMP during the first EWMP process. However, due to the identification of other projects within the Herondo subwatershed, this park was never determined to be necessary, and therefore, was not evaluated further at that time. When re-analyzing Perry Allison Park for the Updated EWMP, two critical factors were recognized early that deemed this project to be an unlikely project for implementation: 1. The depth of the Herondo storm drain adjacent to the park is approximately 60 ft bgs. This meant significant pumping would be required to lift stormwater from Herondo drain to the park for infiltration. In addition, pumps would be deep below ground, leading to significant maintenance concerns and costs. Any stormwater project here would therefore either be very costly (due to significant pumping costs) or limited to only capturing local street runoff from a few acres (if pumping was avoided). The former would lead to an expensive project with a relatively small BMP footprint (see next point); the latter would lead to limited capture volume when compared to the overall need of the subwatershed. 2. The park is small, with a previously identified storage volume of less than 2 acre-ft available. Even in the original EWMP, the total pollutant load reduction estimated to be achieved by the park was Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Page 5 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility approximately 1.3%. When compared to the overall volume reduction needed in the subwatershed, a project here may be feasible, but would not eliminate the need for additional larger projects elsewhere in the subwatershed. Coupled with this, the Fulton Playfield underground detention basin was identified in early January 2021 (see Section 3.1). This project, located a short distance upstream from Perry Allison Park, already contained an existing detention basin. The basin at Fulton Playfield was approximately four times the size of the maximum basin that could be built at Perry Allison, and so immediately proved to be more beneficial and cost-effective to the Group. Once Fulton Playfield was identified as a viable project, the potential project at Perry Allison Park became unnecessary from an EWMP compliance perspective. 2.3 Herondo Low Flow Diversion Expansion Herondo drain is equipped with a low flow diversion (LFD) near the intersection of Valley Dr. and Herondo St. This LFD, operated and maintained by Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD), has a design permitted capacity of 60 gpm between peak hours (6 am – 10 pm) and 120 gpm during non-peak hours (10 pm – 6 am). The LFD captures dry weather flows that are within these design flow rates and conveys them to an adjacent sanitary sewer operated by Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD). The LFD has proven to be an effective means of diverting dry weather flows within the Herondo drain that would otherwise reach the ocean. Upgrading the LFD to handle significantly larger wet weather flows was identified as a potential project to replace the Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Project and meet EWMP requirements. To begin analyzing this proposed solution, Geosyntec began investigating the following critical questions: 1. What was the maximum capacity the LFD could be upgraded to, based on LACSD sewer capacity? 2. Could the LFD operate during wet weather? 3. Were peak hour time constraints flexible? To answer these questions, Geosyntec and the Beach Cities WMG initiated discussion with the Division Engineer for LACSD’s Water Quality Section. The Division Engineer initially communicated to the Group that LACSD could perform a capacity analysis to answer the first question above, but that this process would take months and cost approximately $50,000. A short time later, based on an initial assessment of the Herondo LFD, the Division Engineer communicated that the LFD was already capacity limited, which meant the Group would likely not be able to get increased flow allowance at this location. This recommendation from the Division Engineer was memorialized in the Beach Cities monthly meeting minutes from April 13 (Attachment B). In addition, it should be noted that any increase in flow allowance at this location would likely also require a larger sewer line in Hermosa Beach, which would be costly and time intensive. As a result, the Group decided to investigate other solutions. 2.4 Herondo Street A fourth location identified to be screened for EWMP project implementation was along Herondo Street between N. Harbor Drive and Pacific Coast Highway. Geosyntec performed a desktop and field screening Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Page 6 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility of this project site in coordination with the field screening that took place at N. Francisca Avenue. As was the case with N. Francisca Avenue, this site was determined to have a low likelihood of feasibility for the following reasons: 1. As discussed during the Hermosa Beach Greenbelt Project design phase, liquefaction in the project vicinity was determined to be a significant concern to residents, ultimately influencing the decision to cancel the project. The liquefaction zone potentially affecting the Hermosa Beach Greenbelt extends southward across Herondo Street and along N. Francisca Avenue (Figure 1). Therefore, it was anticipated that similar community concerns may be raised against a project proposed at this location. For this reason, the project was determined to be “very low priority” while other possible projects were explored. 2. A portion of the open space immediately south of Herondo Street has been identified as an earthquake-induced landslide zone (Figure 1). Therefore, infiltration along Herondo Street may exacerbate landslide potential in this area. Although this concern would not likely negate any infiltration in the area, it would likely lead to infiltration limitations in particular areas along the south side of Herondo Street. 3. Depth to groundwater in this area was estimated to be between 10 – 25 ft below ground surface (bgs), based on local groundwater measurements (Figure 2). Two potential constraints were immediately identified as a result of this relatively shallow groundwater: a. Since the invert of the Herondo storm drain is approximately 17 ft bgs near this location, the likelihood of utilizing gravity flow for treatment was very low. As a result of having to introduce pumps into the project design, the cost of the project would be significantly higher than a standard gravity-fed project both upfront (higher capital cost) and in the long- term (higher operations and maintenance costs). When coupled with the relatively small infiltration footprint available in this area (see Point 4 below), the cost effectiveness of this project was immediately determined to be low. b. Infiltration BMPs are generally less effective in shallow groundwater areas due to the fact that there are fewer void spaces available in the soil to fill with infiltrating water. Additionally, infiltrating large volumes of water into shallow groundwater can cause the groundwater table to rise too high in a short amount of time, a geologic condition known as “mounding.” For these reasons, it’s typically advised that there be 10 ft of separation between the bottom of the infiltrating surface and the seasonal high groundwater table.5 Although this separation may exist along N. Francisca Avenue, it was recognized early that the overall effectiveness of an infiltration project in this area would likely be low. 4. Electrical utility conflicts along both the north and south sides of Herondo Street were recognizably significant. As stated in the Group’s 2016 EWMP, “to alleviate concerns of saturating soils around powerline footings, and to allow for powerline maintenance activities to occur, stormwater facilities should be installed at least 100 feet from any tower and 10 feet from any pole. Special consideration 5 For example, the Los Angeles County Low Impact Development Manual (2014) states, “the depth to groundwater beneath the project site during the wet season may preclude infiltration if less than 10 feet of separation exists between the infiltration surface and the seasonal high groundwater or mounded groundwater levels.” Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Page 7 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility and increased distances may be necessary when working around “dead-end” towers, or towers where transmission lines change direction.” Figure 2 shows the various electrical towers and poles in the site vicinity and the radius of exclusion surrounding each. As shown, there would be significant areas of exclusion for infiltration BMPs along Herondo Street. As a result, it was determined that the ability to infiltrate significant stormwater along Herondo Street was likely very low. As a result of all of these factors, Geosyntec considered Herondo Street a “very low priority” project, only to be investigated further if alternative projects could not meet the EWMP requirements. 3 SELECTED EWMP PROJECTS After evaluating the projects above and discussing with the Group, Geosyntec sought to identify additional/new projects that would meet the water quality requirements set forth in the updated RAA. Where feasible, regional-scale projects that capture drainage from larger areas were prioritized, as such projects tend to offer better overall cost-effectiveness. Projects such as these generally require significant open space to construct and ideally are located near storm drains so flows can easily be routed to the project. Where regional projects were not identified or were believed to be infeasible or cost-prohibitive, smaller distributed projects were relied upon. Distributed projects, such as drywells or bioretention planters, are generally designed to treat small individual areas. As a result, capturing large volumes of stormwater requires a significant number of individual BMP components. However, one of the benefits of distributed projects is that they don’t require a large open area, and can also be decentralized, so that siting can be done in a flexible manner by each owning agency. As mentioned previously, due to the compliance metric in the EWMP being volume capture during a given storm event, Geosyntec sought to identify infiltration-type projects, since these are most effective at reducing stormwater runoff. Three new projects came out of this process (in addition to projects already planned, such as the Beach Cities Green Streets and Torrance Basins).6 Collectively, these projects were shown to meet the EWMP/RAA requirements for volume/load reductions within the Herondo subwatershed. These projects are for the remaining portions of the watershed required to be considered in the RAA and for which projects must be identified and pursued to meet MS4 Permit requirements. 3.1 Fulton Playfield Fulton Playfield is an open green space in the City of Redondo Beach at the southeast intersection of Ripley Avenue and Rindge Lane, located in the upper portion of the Herondo subwatershed. The playfield, which is owned and operated by the City of Redondo Beach, is adjacent to an 8.5-foot by 10-foot LACFCD storm 6 The Beach Cities Green Streets Project will capture, treat, and/or infiltrate runoff from approximately 167 acres within the Herondo subwatershed, including tributary areas from all four Beach Cities member cities. The project is currently in the design phase of development and is planning to apply for Safe Clean Water Program funding in 2022. The Torrance Basins Enhancements Project will expand the collective capacity of the Amie, Henrietta, and Entradero Flood Control Basins to fully retain the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm from their combined 1,407-acre tributary area. This project is also in the design phase of development and has successfully applied for Safe Clean Water Program funding. As both of these projects are planned to retain the full 85th percentile, 24-hour storm from their respective drainage areas, their entire drainage areas were removed from the RAA, thus reducing the overall subwatershed area needing to be treated with other projects. Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Page 8 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility drain (BI 6502 Line A) that runs under Ripley Avenue and connects directly to the Herondo Storm Drain on 190th St. An underground flood control retention basin underlies the western half of the playfield and provides approximately 6.4 acre-feet of passive storage to help relieve flooding during storm events. Approximately 440 acres of the City of Redondo Beach and 25 acres of the City of Manhattan Beach are tributary to the basin. The Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project proposes to add infiltration elements to the existing flood control basin in order to transform it into a multi-benefit regional project while maintaining its flood control capacity and function. Infiltration will be accomplished via the addition of drywells to the eastern portion of the playfield. The project will include a control system for the inlet-outlet structure of the basin to manage and optimize the storage and infiltration capacity of the project. The total 24-hour management volume provided by these distributed BMPs will be 29 acre-feet. The City of Redondo Beach will coordinate with LACFCD to advance the design of this project as expeditiously as possible. The Project will also incorporate a variety of other benefits. Parkway greening via the installation of rain gardens is proposed along the east side of Ripley Avenue to capture and treat street flows that aren’t currently tributary to the Project. Park enhancements at the playfield, such as playground equipment or outdoor exercise equipment, are being considered. Additionally, as Valor Christian Academy is directly upstream of the Project, cooperation with the school will be prioritized. The Beach Cities WMG, with the City of Redondo Beach as the lead, prepared and submitted a Feasibility Study in July 2021 for the project to apply for Safe Clean Water Program (SCWP) regional project funding. Among numerous other components, the development of the SCWP application included a detailed site description, regional stormwater BMP design components, geotechnical investigation, and significant public outreach, all as part of the 30% design effort for the project. A concept plan of the project as envisioned is provided in Attachment C. 3.2 Redondo Beach Distributed Infiltration BMPs To address additional runoff from the city in accordance with modeling results, the City of Redondo Beach proposed to implement a series of distributed infiltration BMPs (e.g., drywells, porous gutters, porous crosswalks, porous parking lanes, bioswales, etc.) within the Herondo Drain subwatershed. The proposed BMPs will only treat runoff from the City of Redondo Beach. The total 24-hour management volume provided by these distributed BMPs will be at least 16.3 acre-feet. A concept plan showing a potential distribution of drywells to achieve the required management volume is provided in Attachment C. Exact type and location of each BMP is subject to change and will be established as the design for this project is advanced. 3.3 Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells To address the area-weighted portion of their stormwater runoff, the City of Hermosa Beach proposed to implement a series of drywells within the Herondo Drain subwatershed. Based on initial screening, drywells were proposed east of Pacific Coast Highway, between 1st Street and 10th Street. This location was selected in part because it is near the top of the City’s portion of the watershed, thereby allowing for better infiltration. It also will allow for treatment of runoff exclusively from Hermosa Beach. Drywells were selected here in coordination with the City of Hermosa Beach due to a variety of factors, including: they can be placed Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Page 9 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility completely underground, with effectively no change to the surface; they have a very small footprint; they can be constructed relatively quickly; they are efficient at infiltration; they have built in pre-treatment; they are cost effective when compared to other infiltration measures. The total 24-hour management volume to be provided by these BMPs is estimated to be 8.1 acre-feet. A concept plan showing a potential distribution of drywells to achieve the required management volume is provided in Attachment C. Exact type and location of each BMP is subject to change and will be established as the design for this project is advanced. 3.4 EWMP Project Summary The following summary table compares the various responsibilities of each city for projects within the Herondo Drain subwatershed. The first two columns show each city along with their total land area within the subwatershed, while the third column shows what this land area is by percentage. These numbers include the entire tributary area of the City of Torrance. The fourth column shows what each city’s designated responsibility was for projects per the Dissolution MOU, which accounted for significant volume removals by the City of Torrance and their existing detention basins at the time. Next to this column is a revised percentage that accounts for significant projects already being designed at the time of the Updated EWMP: the Torrance Basins Expansion Project and the Beach Cities Green Streets Project. Collectively, these projects remove all of Torrance’s treatment obligations within the subwatershed. The final column shows the proposed condition per the Updated EWMP, based on the 24-hour management volume of each proposed project. City Area (ac) Percentage Ownership of Total Area Responsibility Per Dissolution MOU (2019) Responsibility by Area (Accounting for 2021 Design Projects)1 Responsibility by Volume (Per Proposed Projects in 2021 EWMP)2 Manhattan Beach 53 1.8% 2.5% 3.6% 3.1%3 Hermosa Beach 283 9.6% 13.6% 18.2% 15.3%4 Redondo Beach 1057 35.7% 50.8% 78.2% 81.7%5 Torrance 1572 53.0% 33.1% - - Total Area 2964 100% 100% 100% 100% 1 This percentage is calculated by removing Torrance’s tributary area in its entirety and also removing the drainage areas of each other city tributary to the Beach Cities Green Streets Project. 2 This percentage is based on the 24-hour management volume proposed to be implemented by each city within the subwatershed as compared to the total reduction volume being achieved by the projects. The City of Manhattan Beach’s percentage is based on the watershed area being captured by Fulton Playfield. Torrance is shown to have zero responsibility given their full-capture projects already in design. 3 Manhattan Beach portion of Fulton Playfield. 4 Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells. 5 Redondo Beach portion of Fulton Playfield and Redondo Beach Distributed Infiltration BMPs. Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Page 10 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility 4 PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND OUTREACH 4.1 Geotechnical Investigations After identifying a suite of projects for compliance within the Herondo subwatershed, preliminary geotechnical investigations were carried out for two of the projects: Fulton Playfield and the Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells.7 These investigations were carried out in accordance with the SCWP Feasibility Study Guidelines in order to prepare the projects for eventual application for SCWP regional funding and gain necessary information about infiltration rates for EWMP modeling. The investigations at each site included the following task: • Reviewing publicly available information regarding site history, local groundwater elevations, previous geotechnical investigations near the site, records of adjacent environmental remediations from GeoTracker, and other relevant documents; • Performing a limited geotechnical field investigation consisting of one (1) CPT sounding to a depth of approximately 50-60 ft; • Evaluating drywell infiltration capacity using hydraulic conductivity values obtained from correlations with CPT data; and • Evaluating soil conditions and potential geologic hazards anticipated in the areas where dry wells are proposed. The summary geotechnical reports produced for the Fulton Playfield and Hermosa Beach investigations are provided as Attachment D and Attachment E, respectively. 4.2 Community Engagement and Outreach In the process of drafting the Updated EWMP, the following outreach and community engagement efforts took place: • Public Website – As part of the revision process for the Beach Cities EWMP in 2021, the Beach Cities WMG created a website [http://beachcitiesewmp.com/] that highlighted the EWMP update process; provided details for each proposed project; and allowed for public comment to be submitted. The website was launched in May 2021. • Public Virtual Webinar – Due to ongoing concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic, large scale in- person public engagement meetings were not held. The Beach Cities WMG held a public virtual webinar on May 19, 2021 to present the draft Updated EWMP and each of the proposed projects to the Beach Cities communities and receive public input. The webinar was publicized in advance via staff communication and public notices by each of the four Beach Cities. A recording of the webinar remains available on the website. 7 The geotechnical investigation for the distributed drywells in Hermosa Beach was carried out at two separate locations due to access challenges in the immediate vicinity of the proposed drywells: Greenwood Park at the corner of Aviation Blvd and Pacific Coast Highway, and a City-owned parking lot on 3rd Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Page 11 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility In addition, multiple focused outreach meetings with proximate stakeholders were orchestrated for the Fulton Playfield Project as part of the SCWP Feasibility Study preparation process. Outreach included (remote) meetings with local Redondo Beach City Councilmember Christian Horvath (District 3), including a number of his constituents; Valor Christian Academy’s Faculties Manager; the CEO of the Bay Foundation; a representative of the Surfrider Foundation; and leadership from the Redondo Beach Unified School District. These meetings sought to raise awareness, receive input, and garner support from the community and stakeholders for the Fulton Playfield Project. As additional projects within the Herondo Drain subwatershed are advanced to apply for SCWP regional funding in the future, focused outreach and engagement events will be held with those project stakeholders. 5 CONCLUSION Collectively, the above-referenced work successfully resulted in the identification of a suite of potential stormwater projects within the Herondo Drain subwatershed that: • Led to the completion of the Updated EWMP in time to submit to the Regional Water Board by the June 30, 2021 compliance deadline; • Demonstrate achievement of MS4 Permit and TMDL requirements via the RAA; • Prioritize cost-effectiveness, particularly by utilizing state-of-the-practice BMPs (i.e., drywells) where feasible, and by utilizing already-existing stormwater infrastructure (i.e., Fulton Playfield); • Require a smaller amount of BMP storage when compared to the original Beach Cities EWMP; and • Support Measure W funding eligibility for certain identified regional projects. These achievements demonstrate that the intent and purpose of Geosyntec’s contractual scope of work, which was authorized by the Revised EWMP MOU, with respect to feasibility studies and other described activities were or are being met through the work administered by the City of Redondo Beach in the best interest of all agencies party to the Beach Cities WMG. Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility Figures Figure adapted from: LA0298-5\Figure 3 - Liquefaction Potential SEISMIC HAZARD POTENTIAL REDONDO BEACH 7.5’ QUADRANGLE Hermosa Infiltration Project Hermosa Beach, California Figure 1 Sep 2021 Site Location CWR 0645 Figure CWR 0645 Sep 2021 2 \\westla-01\Data\Project Folders\CWR0645 -Beach Cities EWMP 2020\400 Technical Draft Report\405 EWMP Notes: Aerial imagery and Utility assessment from Google Earth, 2021. Groundwater Well from LA County,2008. Approximate Well Location Approximate Existing Storm Drain Line Approximate Submarine Comm Line Overhead Utility (Power Lines) Utility Exclusion Zone (Power Pole/Tower) Legend Hermosa Beach, California Hermosa Infiltration Project Assessment Hermosa Infiltration Project 9.2 ft bgs (10/30/2008) 24.5 ft bgs (3/20/2017)DRAFT Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility Attachment A Minutes from December 8, 2020 Meeting Beach Cities WMG Tuesday, December 8, 2020 (10am-noon) 1. Introductions: Doug Krauss/Hermosa Beach, Shawn Igoe/Manhattan Beach, Geraldine Trivedi/Redondo Beach, John Dettle/Torrance, Yao Kouwonou/LACFCD, Chris Wessel/Geosyntec, Susan Robinson/McGowan Consulting, Kathleen McGowan/McGowan Consulting, Michelle Staffield/JLHA, Cameron McCullough/JLHA 2. Approval of November Meeting Minutes: approved. 3. Watershed Annual Report: Susan Robinson Report Completion Schedule: a. Discussion of the change in approach/response to the adaptive management question in Section 7 of watershed annual report. b. McGowan will distribute final revised watershed report and final IMCR with request for authorization to submit via email by Thursday, December 10th. c. Final Watershed Annual Report package submittal by McGowan to Regional Board FTP website by December 15, 2020. 4. CIMP MOU and Implementation a. CIMP Implementation MOU Status: Redondo Beach City Council approved MOU last week. Hermosa Beach and Torrance will consider today, December 8th. Manhattan Beach will take to Council on December 15th. LACFCD will move it through their process as quickly as possible, usually takes 2 weeks, but will try to expedite. b. Bacteria Source Tracking/Investigation Update: Chris Wessel. Followup monitoring event conducted on November 24 for SMB 6-2. Diversion project was effectively diverting. Expecting results this week from lab. c. CIMP Implementation Update: Chris Wessel. Monitoring team is waiting for the first qualifying rain forecast. 5. EWMP/RAA Update MOU and Project Prioritization a. EWMP/RAA Update MOU: Geraldine Trivedi. Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach have approved the MOU and Redondo Beach has approved Geosyntec’s contract. Geraldine has authorized Geosyntec to begin preparatory work and modeling, but no field work can be authorized until MOU is approved by all parties--still awaiting approval by Torrance and Manhattan Beach. b. Discussion of Regional Projects for inclusion in EWMP/RAA Update: Chris Wessel and group. i. Herondo subwatershed prioritized list of regional alternative projects 1. Perry Allison Park (Redondo Beach) in combination with dry wells along 190th and/or upstream tributary area: Depth of the Herondo storm drain at this location (60 ft BGS) is a challenge. Any additional capture that can happen along 190th with dry wells would be beneficial to save costs before it enters into the Herondo storm drain. Joint Green Streets project is looking at dry wells—will try to coordinate, and will include Chris in future discussions/meetings, as necessary. 2. Expansion of Low Flow Diversion in Herondo Street: Yao has checked with wastewater division and they are not currently planning on upgrading that LFD. Yao has requested the plans so that this can be evaluated. Kathleen to provide contact information for Kristen Ruffell/LACSD for Chris to contact for assistance evaluating this option. 2 3. Herondo Street between N. Harbor Drive and Pacific Coast Highway 4. 700 and 800 blocks of N. Francisca Street (Redondo Beach) – due to significant feasibility challenges this site is of lower priority for consideration than others. 5. Torrance Basins Expansion: Geosyntec would like to be updated with information as the design proceeds. ii. Dominguez Channel alternative projects 1. Alondra Park: still waiting for an updated cost estimate from LA County to apportion shares. As information is firmed up, Geosyntec would like to be updated. Has also circled back with County on how to model the project in WMMS. 2. Joint IGP/MS4 Regional Project: Kathleen to share notes from meeting with NGC with Geosyntec. iii. Completed Distributed Projects: Geosyntec needs information on the completed green street projects as soon as possible, the earlier the better—needs design information. 1. Michelle Staffield to send plans for the Hermosa 8th Street project. 2. Geosyntec will request specifics from Redondo Beach on their green street projects. 3. Manhattan Beach Village Mall—Shawn Igoe to obtain design information from Community Development and share with Geosyntec. 6. EWMP Implementation: a. Beach Cities Green Street Project Update: John Dettle. Kickoff meeting with CWE was last week. CWE is preparing the work plan for the grant manager. Trisha Murakawa is working with each city on public outreach piece. Geosyntec needs information on the joint green street projects planned as soon as possible, the earlier the better. b. Projects Submitted for FY2122 Safe Clean Water funding: i. Joint Green Street Project – construction funding. ii. Torrance Basin Enhancement Project 85th %, 24-hr Capture—construction funding iii. Manhattan Beach Stormwater Infiltration Project – design and construction funding iv. Torrance Catch Basin Filter BMP Siting Study—technical feasibility funding v. Torrance Airport Project (Machado Lake Project)—construction funding for FY2223. c. Joint Outreach Efforts: no update 7. Safe Clean Water Program a. Municipal and Regional Program Transfer Agreements in process b. South Santa Monica Bay WASC Meeting November 18 (Shawn Igoe and John Dettle were in attendance at that meeting). i. Safe Clean Water Projects portal now populated with projects submitted through October 2020: https://portal.safecleanwaterla.org/scw-reporting/map includes much useful information. ii. Safe Clean Water Reporting Module coming soon iii. Watershed Coordinator interviews on agendas of upcoming WASC meetings. iv. Chair and vice chair selection/vote deferred to next meeting. Current chair is stepping down, but decision on replacement was deferred until next meeting on December 16 3 c. Next Call for Projects anticpated deadline: July 31, 2021 8. Regional Board and State Water Board Items a. Tentative Regional MS4 Permit: written comments were due Dec. 7, 2020 (yesterday). A number of comment letters were submitted: SGVCOG, Peninsula WMG, Richards Watson Gershon. b. Standing MS4 item on December 10 Regional Board meeting. Aiming for a spring 2020 adoption hearing on the Tentative Regional Permit. c. Regional Board Workshop on Monitoring & Reporting held Nov. 19, 2020. Summary notes and links to presentation distributed by McGowan. d. State Board Order on E/WMPs adopted on Nov. 17, 2020. Key item for BC WMG: must submit demonstration of completion of all work associated with prior and current milestones with EWMP/RAA Update due on June 30, 2021 in order to retain deemed compliance until approval of updated EWMP/RAA. e. TMDL Deadline Extension Project via Basin Plan Amendment released on Nov. 20, 2020. Written comments originally due Jan. 4, 2021 [extended to January 11] with hearing on Feb. 11, 2021. i. Public Workshop on TMDL Extensions scheduled for December 16, 9:30-11:30 The Notice of Hearing, Staff Report, Tentative Resolution and proposed Basin Plan amendments are available on the Los Angeles Water Board’s website at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/board_decisions/basin_plan_amendm ents/technical_documents/bpa_137_R21-001_td.html ii. Consider whether to submit a request for extension of time to provide written comments to 60-days or by Jan. 20, 2021 due to timing of this release right before holidays or whether WMG prefers to just submit support letter. 1. JG5/6 proposed for 3-year extension of SMBBB TMDL final wet weather compliance deadline based on Regional Board staff analysis of timeline for economic recovery from Covid-19 impacts, however no extension for anti-degradation sites 2. JG2/3 group received a 5-year extension of SMBBB TMDL final wet weather deadline iii. Draft BPA suggests potential to combine with up to two (2) 5-year TSOs iv. Group consensus is to ask for a 5-year extension to the TMDL. County will be submitting comments. County is in a difficult position since they have TMDLs that will come due before Basin Plan Amendment becomes effective. v. Doug to make statement at workshop next week to ask for opportunity to have 5-years. (Susan to forward notice). vi. McGowan to draft a letter asking for 5-year extension for submittal by Redondo Beach for submittal on January 4th [now January 11th] 9. Other Items SB205 workshop summary: State law now enforceable by the State Attorney General. Cities must verify proof of coverage under the industrial general permit for any business with a qualifying SIC code before renewing or issuing a business license. Business should be self-reporting the SIC code. Businesses can be referred to State Board or Regional Board for assistance, or contact insurance carrier to ask about SIC code. Cities may need to make changes to their process to collect SIC codes. 10. Next meeting: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 - 10am-noon 4 11. Action Items: a. McGowan to submit final Watershed Annual Report package by December 14, 2020. [completed] b. Torrance and Manhattan Beach City Councils to approve EWMP/RAA Update MOU c. McGowan to provide notes from meeting with NGC on Dominguez Channel watershed regional project. d. Michelle Staffield/JLHA to send plans for the Hermosa 8th Street project. e. Geosyntec will request specific information needed from Redondo Beach on their green street projects. f. Manhattan Beach Village Mall—Shawn to obtain design information from Community Development and provide to Geosyntec (for EWMP/RAA) and McGowan (for upload to WRAMPS). g. Torrance to provide design information to Geosyntec on Torrance Basin Expansion project as it becomes available—starting with information from SCW project proposal upload. h. Torrance to provide Geosyntec preliminary design information on the joint green street projects as soon as available i. McGowan to draft a letter asking for 5-year extension of final wet weather deadline for submittal to the Regional Board by Redondo Beach by January 11th comment deadline. Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility Attachment B Minutes from April 13, 2021 Meeting 1 Beach Cities WMG Meeting Minutes Tuesday, April 13, 2021 1. Attendees: Doug Krauss/Hermosa Beach, Shawn Igoe/Manhattan Beach, Lourdes Vargas/Manhattan Beach, Geraldine Trivedi/Redondo Beach, John Dettle/Torrance, Yao Kouwonou/LACFCD, Chris Wessel/Geosyntec, Susan Robinson/McGowan Consulting, Kathleen McGowan/McGowan Consulting, Michelle Staffield/JLHA, Cameron McCullough/JLHA. Shawn introduced Lourdes Vargas who is the new Utilities Division Manager in Manhattan Beach. Shawn is leaving for a new role as Public Works Director at the City of LaVerne. 2. Approval of March Meeting Minutes – minutes approved 3. Santa Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL a. March 11 Regional Board meeting summary of two key items i. Item 11 TMDL Extension (carried over from February meeting): 1. Lengthy discussion on the item began with a recap by Regional Board staff. Public testimony had been closed on the item at the previous meeting so only direct questions from Board Members posed to previous presenters was accepted. 2. Guided by Chair Yee in attempt to find consensus, significant discussion was had among board members as well as responses to specific questions posed by the Board Members to Regional Board staff and those who testified previously. 3. Board Member James Stahl delivered a formal powerpoint presentation to explain his opinion that a 10-year extension of TMDLs was warranted including a time extension for dry weather given the significant uncertainty about timeframe for Covid-19 pandemic recovery. Board Member Munoz and Chair Yee seemed to be swayed by his presentation, however the other board members including the two newest members were not. 4. After voting down Board Member Stahl’s motion to extend the TMDLs for 10 years, the Regional Board voted unanimously in favor of the staff recommendation for TMDL schedule extensions with additional proviso that the permittees will make oral reports to the Regional Board on their progress annually along with a summary written report until WLAs are achieved. ii. Regional MS4 Permit Update under subsequent MS4 item on March 11 agenda: 1. Regional Board Staff are responding to 76 comment letters on the tentative Regional Permit, with 800 individual comments. They plan to bring permit to Regional Board for consideration in June 2021. [subsequent to this meeting at the LA Permit Group meeting on 4/14 we heard that Regional Board do not expect to send out the draft Permit before the end of May] 2. Presentations on permittee progress under current MS4 Permits by: Arne Anslem/Ventura County, Paul Alva/LA County, Shahram Kharaghani/City of LA, Richard Watson/Los Cerritos Channel Watershed, John Hunter for Lower LA River and Lower San Gabriel Rivers watershed groups 2 3. Rowan Roderick Jones/the Nature Conservancy: recommending revision to the LID triggers to eliminate disturbed area threshholds and rely only on impervious area for triggers, for redevelopment to eliminate triggers relating to existing impervious area, recommends lowering triggers to 2,000 SF new or replacement of impervious area, recommends applying hydromodification to all projects regardless of type of channel. 4. Analisa Moe, Shelly Luce/HtB – want measurability and accountability with enforceable goals. 5. Cori Bell/NRDC Attorney – believes that safe harbors in the current permit have undermined compliance and implementation. Thanks Board for requiring annual reports on progress for the TMDL extensions. b. TMDL Time Extension Next Steps – LACFCD i. Yao Kouwonou/LACFCD: 1. County staff has received comments from County counsel and the Beach Cities and will send out the revised version today for another look. Will need comments as soon as possible today [McGowan Consulting provided review same day] 2. An email from each agency will suffice as approval to submit. ii. John Dettle will to try to obtain Torrance’s costs to implement Clean Bay Restaurant Program for inclusion with the other cities [this was accomplished on the following day] 4. EWMP/RAA Update and Implementation a. EWMP/RAA Update MOU invoicing: Geraldine Trivedi. Invoices have been sent out to each agency, would appreciate prompt payment since Redondo Beach has authorized work in advance. b. EWMP Status Update: Chris Wessel/Geosyntec i. EWMP text has been shortened significantly, more like an executive summary with much of the details moved to appendices. ii. Proposed Projects to Achieve TLRs – switching over to WMMS 2.0 has helped in terms of compliance objectives. 1. Phase 1 of MB Infiltration Trench is showing that all necessary volume reduction can be achieved there in combination with the currently planned green streets. 2. Herondo storm drain system regional and distributed projects included in the Reasonable Assurance Analysis modeling: a. Fulton Playfield with addition of dry wells around park perimeter appears to be a very effective concept. (LACFCD must review the concept in advance of submitting to the South Santa Monica Bay Watershed Area Steering Committee Meeting for Safe, Clean Water Regional funding.) b. Distributed dry wells/infiltration BMPs in Redondo Beach and Hermosa Beach, conceptually planned to manage the remaining target load reduction (TLR) volume for each city. 3 c. Beach Cities Green Streets Project – as CWE has conceptually planned these to achieve 85th percentile capture, the drainage areas were removed from the model. d. Note that Torrance Basin Expansion is an 85%/24-hr capture and therefore does not need to be modeled 3. Dominguez Channel North (Redondo and Manhattan Beach) Alondra Park addresses part of management volume for both Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach. Additional management volumes to be addressed by: a. Manhattan Beach - Dry wells on 33rd Street near Northrup Grumman Corp complex b. Redondo Beach – Anderson Park off of Vail Ave and distributed dry wells 4. Dominguez Channel South (City of Torrance) for both Torrance Lateral and Dominguez Channel. a. Narrative description of the BMPs is being left flexible so that management volumes can be addressed through a combination of distributed measures including: distributed catch basin inserts, dry well installations, other distributed structural measures. iii. Project-Specific Work 1. Geotechnical Investigation recommended for Fulton Playfield, Hermosa green streets near PCH, and Anderson Park in Dominguez Channel-North. Chris is following up with Doug and Geraldine regarding timing/permitting, with the current goal of conducting geotechnical investigations in early May. 2. Safe Clean Water Applications: Redondo Beach would like to submit an application for Fulton Playfield at the upcoming call for projects (July 2021). Chris recommends not to submit any additional projects during this round so as not to compete with the projects that are currently submitted. This will also allow Geosyntec and the Beach Cities Group to better prepare the project applications (e.g., with more thorough concepts) and have more community engagement underway before submitting. iv. Outreach: 1. Schedule for taking the EWMP to City Councils. Geosyntec understands that these need to be reviewed at City Council in May to make any final changes prior to submittal by June 30th. a. Torrance would like to go to Council May 18 or 25. b. Redondo Beach would like to go May 18 (would need the document by May 10th) c. Manhattan could go May 18 or June 1st d. Hermosa: May 25 e. County has authority for staff level approval, does not need to go to Board of Supervisors 4 Geosyntec will aim to have the Council review document ready by May 10th. Depending on timing and other constraints, Geosyntec may provide additional document formatting while council reviews are taking place. Alternatively, this could take place following council approvals. 2. Now that invoices have been sent out, Geosyntec has initiated outreach efforts with Murakawa Communications (the team’s outreach subconsultant). Given the schedule delays, the team needs to focus our outreach efforts on the EWMP, with project-specific outreach efforts likely to be delayed (with the exception of Fulton Playfield). The team will plan on one general online (e.g., via Zoom) outreach event prior to May 18th. The team will also look into the option of creating a website for the draft EWMP in order to solicit public feedback. Chris will follow-up with the Group on the feasibility/cost of this option. v. Review Schedule – Geosyntec is aiming for sending out a draft EWMP by end of this week. Upon delivery, Geosyntec will communicate review turnaround time for the Group, in order to have enough time to revise EWMP by May 10. c. Potential Sewer Capacity Study Kristen Ruffell/LACSD provided the following information for potential sewer capacity studies for either expanding current capacity of specific low flow diversions (LFDs) or siting new diversions: i. Discouraged the group from trying to increase Herondo Low Flow Diversion capacity due to high likelihood there is no additional capacity in the local sewer line ii. Recommends that a single sewer capacity study could be done for both the new LFD proposed at the outfall near SMB 6-2 south of Redondo Beach Pier, and for the existing LFD at Avenue I because they could tie into South Bay Cities Main Trunk line iii. Recommends conservatively budgeting $50K each for the sewer capacity studies iv. Redondo Beach is currently discussing with Regional Board staff and is proposing these sanitary sewer studies as supplemental environmental projects. d. Regional and Distributed Projects In-Progress i. Alondra Park Regional project being led by County of Los Angeles to assist agencies in the Dominguez Channel Watershed tributary to the project (including Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach): 1. Moving forward on design for 44 AF capture project at total estimated cost of $60.4M 2. CalTrans is providing $15M in funding and taking 8.3 AF credit 3. Baseline stormwater capture volume credit is to be distributed to cities according to land area draining to Alondra Park and the total volume capture credit for MB and RB is ~7.05AF 4. Cities can buy approx. 0.91AF capture credit with $1M, but this also increases their O&M costs. 5. The modeled dry weather flow rate during preliminary design was 133 AFY vs. the field measured dry weather flow rate which was observed to be 785 AFY -this primarily affects the O&M costs rather than the design size of the project 5 a. This could increase the sanitary sewer fee from an estimated $40k/year to $500k/year if the total volume is diverted b. County thinks the project should be built to handle the high observed flows so as to “future proof” the project ii. Beach Cities Joint Green Street Project Update: John Dettle Schedule for engagement/outreach on various Green Street locations: 1. Torrance a. Saturday, 4/17/21 [10am to 12:30pm] - Open House Public Meeting for El Nido Neighborhood b. Monday, 4/19/21 [6:30pm to 7:30pm] - Virtual Public Meeting (Zoom) 2. Hermosa Beach a. Tuesday, 4/20/21 [4pm to 6pm] - Pop-up table session b. Wednesday, 4/21/21 [4pm to 6pm] - Pop-up table session c. Saturday, 4/24/21 [10am to 11am] - Virtual Public Meeting (Zoom) 3. Manhattan Beach a. Friday, 4/16/21 [4pm to 6pm] - Pop-up table session for 19th St b. Friday, 4/23/21 [4pm to 6pm] - Pop-up table session for 19th St 4. Redondo Beach a. Tuesday, 4/13/21 [4pm to 6pm] - Pop-up table session for Anita St b. Wednesday, 4/14/21 [4pm to 6pm] - Pop-up table session for Ford Ave c. Thursday, 4/15/21 - Neighborhood Office Hours (Presentation) with Councilmember Horvath d. Thursday, 4/22/21 [4pm to 6pm] - Pop-up table session for Ford Ave iii. Torrance Basins Expansion Project Update: John Dettle 1. Have completed 60% design, next submittal will be 95% submittal 2. Would like support from Beach Cities representatives for awarding the project Safe Clean Water construction funding at the next South Santa Monica Bay WASC meeting on 4/21/21 2-4pm iv. Manhattan Beach Stormwater Infiltration Project Update: also being considered for construction funding at the next South Santa Monica Bay WASC meeting on 4/21/21 e. Minimum Control Measures modifications for the EWMP Update: McGowan Consulting i. Do Redondo Beach and/or Torrance have any programs similar to Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach to reduce use of pesticides such as pesticide free zones? Geraldine and John will check internally [subsequent to meeting, John provided description of pesticide- free zones in Torrance]. 6 ii. Construction Program modification - Building Officials have not responded to meeting request, recommend that group defer customization of this program to a future adaptive management if needed after the Regional Permit is adopted. Group concurred. f. Rainwater Harvesting Outreach Piece for Earth Day 2021 Distributed by McGowan Consulting i. Outreach pieces have been distributed for dissemination during Earth Week. If any customizations are needed, please let McGowan Consulting know. ii. Hermosa Beach has already disseminated the outreach. 5. Coordinated Integrated Monitoring Program (CIMP) Implementation a. Implementation Update: Chris Wessel/Geosyntec i. 3rd wet weather monitoring event completed on March 10th, receiving water monitoring followed on March 12 after small craft advisory was lifted. ii. Final dry weather monitoring event conducted on March 23rd. iii. All monitoring is completed for this reporting year and the CEDEN data will be uploaded by the next six-month deadline iv. Microbial Source Tracking Study update: still need to conduct one more event during dry weather. b. John Dettle is asking about where the invoices are for the new CIMP MOU, he needs them for his budget. Manhattan Beach staff to follow up. 6. Regional Board and State Water Board Items Tentative MS4 Permit next permit is anticipated to be adopted in June 2021. [Following this meeting we were informed at the LA Permit Group Meeting that Regional Board staff do not expect to issue the draft Regional Permit for public comment until end of May 2021] 7. Safe Clean Water Program a. Municipal SCW Annual Plans due April 1, 2021. LACFCD will honor Annual Plan format used last year, it is recommended to submit ASAP if not already done so. b. South Santa Monica Bay WASC update i. With his departure, Shawn proposed that Geraldine/Redondo Beach should now act as the Beach Cities’ primary representative (she has previously served as alternate) with Doug/Hermosa Beach now to serve as the alternate. Doug has received approval from his management to do so. The Beach Cities representatives approved the recommendation unanimously. ii. FY21-22 Stormwater Investment Plan Update – new tool is now available on the SCW website. c. Next call for Projects anticipated deadline: July 31, 2021 i. Beach Cities Joint Green Streets Project resubmittal (previously pulled due to delays in design and public outreach) ii. Potential Technical Resources or Scientific Study application for sewer capacity study for siting future LFDs 8. Other Items a. CASQA Group membership: McGowan Consulting 7 i. New fee schedule allows for groups of MS4 agencies. Fee is based on total population of the group. ii. The group expressed interest in joining as a watershed group. iii. Torrance is currently a member, the LACFCD is a member. iv. McGowan to obtain fee schedule from CASQA and bring back to the next meeting. 9. Next meeting: - May 11, 2021 10am-noon 10. Action Items: a. Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Torrance representatives to try to facilitate prompt payment on EWMP MOU invoices from Redondo Beach. b. Manhattan Beach staff to follow up internally with the City’s finance department to send out first set of invoices to the other agencies on the CIMP Implementation MOU recently executed. c. Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach and Torrance representatives if possible should attend the April 21 (1-3pm) South Santa Monica Bay Watershed Area Steering Committee Meeting and speak in support of funding for both the Stormwater Basin Expansion Project (Torrance) and the South Santa Monica Bay Water Quality Enhancement: 28th Street Storm Drain Infiltration (Manhattan Beach) d. Redondo Beach to follow up with McGowan Consulting to advise whether there are any pesticide-free zones or other pesticide minimization enhancements being implemented. e. McGowan Consulting to request estimate from CASQA for a group membership for the Beach Cities for consideration at the next meeting. Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility Attachment C Project Concept Factsheets for Selected Herondo Projects This project will improve the three flood control basins to reduce bacteria levels in receiving waters during the dry season and to capture the 85th percentile storm event.The project deepens the Henreitta and Entradero Basins to provide additional detention capacity,adds passive wetland treatment and drywells at all basins to increase the runoff management capacity.The project also includes a variety of efforts to improve the recreational opportunities and aesthetics of the parks. Herondo Drain collects stormwater from portions of the cities of Torrance,Redondo Beach,Hermosa Beach,and Manhattan Beach.Three basins within Torrance that are connected to the Herondo Drain including Amie,Henrietta,and Entradero Basins. Existing Site Conditions Infiltration Bypass Herondo Storm DrainRouted Flow Impervious Surface Runoff to Storm Drain Basin *Products shown above were used as examples for sizing and cost analyses; other equivalent treatment systems or products may be used. Proposed BMP Project City: Torrance Latitude: 33.853378 Longitude: -118.371828 BMP Treatment Process Planning-Level Cost Estimate1 Total Tributary Area (ac)1,407 24-Hour Capture Volume (ac-ft)46.5* Basin Footprint (ac) 4.3 (Amie) 6.9 (Henrietta) 24 (Entradero) Effective Drawdown Rate (in/hr)0.8 Capital Cost Construction $4.5M Planning & Design $735k Annual Costs O&M $30k Monitoring $80k Multiple Benefits Typical Details Site Configuration Model Design & Performance Community Investment Benefits •Improved flood management and water quality •Enhanced park space via multi- purpose recreational area. •Create new recreational opportunities via walking trail Nature-Based Solutions •Implements natural processes to slow, detain, capture, and infiltrate water •Utilize natural vegetation •Reduce directly connected impermeable area flowing to existing drainage system Torrance Basins Enhancement & Expansion Project 1Costs from SCW application 2Monitoring is only required for 3 years. *Equivalent to the 85th percentile, 24-hour design storm runoff from the entire drainage area. Torrance Basins Enhancement & Expansion Project June 2021 2 The Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project proposes to add infiltration elements to the existing flood control basin to transform it into a multi-benefit regional project.This will enhance the flood control capacity of the existing basin while adding significant water quality benefits through volume loss via infiltration.Infiltration will be accomplished using drywells.The project will provide full capture of dry weather volume and controlled wet weather releases with improved inlet-outlet control structures to manage and optimize the storage and infiltration capacity of the project.Park enhancements including outdoor exercise and playground equipment are also planned. Adding features that can better capture runoff from the adjacent school along with green water quality features such as bioretention and ocean friendly gardens in the park and along Rindge Lane will provide additional benefits to the community. The site is an open green space in the City of Redondo Beach. The park includes a 1.25-acre recreational field with an existing underground storage basin that has 280,000 gallons of passive storage beneath the western half of the park. Existing Site Conditions Infiltration Bypass Existing Storm DrainRouted Flow Impervious Area Draining to the Existing Underground Storage Basin Infiltration: 13 Drywells *Drywells were used for sizing and cost analyses; other equivalent products or treatment systems may be used but have not been included in costs. Proposed BMP Project City: Redondo Beach Latitude: 33.861774 Longitude: -118.372308 BMP Treatment Process Planning-Level Cost Estimate1 Tributary Area (ac)465 24-Hour Treatment Volume (ac-ft)28.6 No. of Proposed Equivalent Drywells 13 Treatment Rate (cfs)13 Bacteria Load Reduction During Critical Condition 76 x 1012 MPN/year (27% of Baseline Bacteria Load) Capital Cost Construction $2.0M Planning & Design $395kAnnual Costs O&M $30k Monitoring $14k Multiple Benefits Typical Details Site Configuration Model Design & Performance Community Investment Benefits •Improved flood management •Enhanced park via playground •Cooperation with greening of Valor Christian Academy •Potential for recreational workout stations per community preferences Nature-Based Solutions •Utilize natural vegetation and other nature-based processes such as ocean friendly gardens to capture, slow, and filter runoff •Reduce directly connected impermeable area flowing to existing drainage system Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project 1Estimates based on representative drywells and previous project estimates for piping. 2Monitoring is only required for 3 years.*Nature-based BMPs may include bioretention,pervious pavement,and biofilters. Fulton Playfield Infiltration Project June 2021 2 Existing Site Conditions *Products shown above were used as examples for sizing and cost analyses; other equivalent products or treatment systems may be used. Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells Infiltration Bypass Existing Storm DrainRouted Flow Impervious Surface Runoff Infiltration: Drywells Overflow Proposed BMP Project City: Hermosa Beach Latitude: 33.857054 Longitude: -118.390251 BMP Treatment Process Planning-Level Cost Estimate1 Multiple Benefits Typical Detail Site Configuration Model Design & Performance Untreated surface runoff enters the storm drain network through surface catch basins in this area as the neighborhood transitions from residential in the higher areas to commercial areas near the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). A typical example is shown on 3rd Street, east of PCH. The City of Hermosa Beach is planning to implement a series of drywells east of PCH between 1st Street and 10th Street to capture stormwater and dry weather flows within 118 acres of the Herondo Drain (SMB-6-1)watershed.The drywells will be placed strategically upstream of existing catch basins to maximize infiltration. Capital Cost Construction of Drywells $1.4M Planning & Design $250k Annual Costs O&M $35k Monitoring $25k 1Estimates based on drywells. 2Monitoring only required for 3 years. 2 Tributary Area (ac)118 24-Hour Treatment Volume (ac-ft)8.1 No. of Proposed Drywells 11 Treatment Rate (cfs)11 Pollutant Load Reduction Bacteria 21.6 x 1012 MPN/year (7.7% of Baseline Bacteria Load) Community Investment Benefits •Improved flood management Nature-Based Solutions •Utilize natural vegetation and other nature-based processes to slow, detain, capture, and filter water •Reduce directly connected impermeable area flowing to existing drainage system Source: Google Maps Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells June 2021 Existing Site Conditions *Products shown above were used as examples for sizing and cost analyses; other equivalent infiltration systems may be used. Redondo Beach HerondoDistributed Infiltration Project Infiltration Bypass Existing Storm DrainRouted Flow Impervious Surface Runoff Infiltration: Targeted Infiltration Systems Overflow Proposed BMP Project City: Redondo Beach Latitude: Various Longitude: Various BMP Treatment Process Planning-Level Cost Estimate1 Typical Detail Site Configuration Model Design & Performance Surface runoff enters the storm drain network through various catch basins, as seen below on Armour Lane. The drainage area is mostly residential, with limited commercial development. The City of Redondo Beach is planning to implement a series of targeted infiltration BMPs to collect surface runoff from a 342- acre area of Redondo Beach within the Herondo Storm Drain watershed (SMB-6-1).The infiltration BMPs will be placed strategically upstream of existing catch basins to maximize infiltration;see site configuration map for potential infiltration areas.Drywells are one example of a potential infiltration BMP. Capital Cost Construction $2.8M Planning & Design $460k Annual Costs O&M $70k Monitoring $55k 1Estimates based on drywells. 2Monitoring only required for 3 years. 2 Tributary Area (ac)342 24-Hour Treatment Volume (ac-ft)16.3 No. of Proposed Infiltration BMPs 22 Treatment Rate (cfs)22 Pollutant Load Reduction Bacteria 43.6 x 1012 MPN/year (16% of Baseline Bacteria Load) Multiple Benefits Community Investment Benefits •Improved flood management Nature-Based Solutions •Utilize natural vegetation and other nature-based processes to slow, detain, capture, and filter water •Reduce directly connected impermeable area flowing to existing drainage system Redondo Beach Herondo Distributed Infiltration Project June 2021 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility Attachment D Initial Geotechnical Investigation Summary Report Fulton Playfield CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 Memorandum Date: July 15, 2021 To: Curtis Fang, P.E. Scott Struck, Ph.D., ENV SP From: Karthik Viswanathan, E.I.T. Chris Conkle, P.E., G.E. Subject: Limited Geotechnical Investigation and Infiltration Evaluation Fulton Playfield, Beach Cities SCWP Feasibility Study Redondo Beach, California This memorandum summarizes the geotechnical investigation and results of infiltration evaluations which were conducted at the Fulton Playfield (Site) located in Redondo Beach, California. These evaluations were conducted accordance in accordance with the Safe Clean Water Program (SCWP) Feasibility Study Guidelines, prepared in conjunction with the updated Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) for the South Bay Beach Cities. Proposed improvements consist of biofilter/drywell systems which will be constructed in an effort to improve water quality and increase groundwater recharge. The project is planned to consist of installation of these drywells in an existing park area to capture and infiltrate a portion of surface water runoff which passes through the site. The approximate Site location is provided as Figure 1. The schematic layout of the planned improvements at the Site is shown on Figure 2. This memorandum documents the field investigation, the desktop review of relevant geotechnical and groundwater data, and provides a discussion of recommended drywell design infiltration rates calculated based on assessments of likely soil hydraulic conductivity estimated from the Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) conducted at this site. The memorandum is provided to support development of design concepts for the project with the understanding that additional investigations and evaluation related to geotechnical conditions will be conducted at the project’s design phase. EVALUATION APPROACH A systematic approach was utilized to establish the drywell design infiltration capacity for the project. First a CPT sounding was advanced. Hydraulic conductivity estimates were then made for the soils encountered at the CPT sounding location based on CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 correlations with published data. Based on this evaluation, Geosyntec developed estimates of drywell infiltration capacity using empirical/analytical correlations. Detailed discussion of the evaluations and the design infiltration capacity for the Site are provided in the following sections. SITE SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION A limited geotechnical investigation was carried out at the Site. This investigation included the following tasks: • Reviewing publicly available information regarding site history, local groundwater elevations, previous geotechnical investigations near the Site, records of adjacent environmental remediations from GeoTracker and other relevant documents; • Performing a limited geotechnical field investigation consisting of one (1) CPT sounding to a depth of 60 ft; • Evaluating drywell infiltration capacity using hydraulic conductivity values obtained from correlations with CPT data; • Evaluating soil conditions and potential geologic hazards anticipated in the areas where dry wells are proposed; and • Preparing this memorandum summarizing findings and recommendations. CPT Investigation The CPT investigation consisted of advancing one (1) CPT soundings to a depth of 60 feet below ground surface (ft bgs). A summary of the CPT investigation is provided in Attachment 1. The location of the CPT sounding is indicated on Figure 1. The CPT sounding was performed in general accordance with ASTM D5778 using a 15 cm2 cone which measured and recorded cone resistance, sleeve friction, and dynamic pore pressure at 2.5 cm intervals. PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATIONS GEI (2000) advanced 3 hollow-stem auger (HSA) borings (designated as DB-1, DB-2, and A-2) in the Fulton Playfield to depths between 30 and 51 ft bgs, to evaluate subsurface conditions along the alignment of a proposed storm drain and the detention basin. Boring DB-1 was drilled in the vicinity of the CPT advanced in current investigation (next to the Parking lot), boring DB-2 was drilled in the vicinity of the northeast corner of the playfield, and boring A-2 was drilled in the vicinity of the crossing (Rindge Lane-Ripley Ave). The boring logs indicate that the first 5 to 10 ft consists of fill material (medium CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 dense silty sand and fat clay) underlain by alluvium soils (medium dense to very dense silty sand) up to approximately 30 ft bgs. The alluvial soils below 30 ft bgs were generally very dense poorly graded sands with silt. Groundwater was not encountered during these investigations. Per the information provided to GEI (2000) by the County of Los Angeles, groundwater is assumed to be deeper than 70 ft at the Site. American Geotechnical (2017) advanced a single HSA boring (designated as AGSB-1) on Rindge Lane to a depth of 51 ft bgs at the location of the proposed Rindge Avenue Pump station. The boring was drilled at the southwest corner of the Fulton Playfield. The fill encountered at this location consisting of sand to silty sand to a depth of 2 ft bgs, and was underlain by alluvial soils consisting of loose silty sands in the upper 20 ft. The encountered silty sands below 20 ft bgs were generally medium dense to dense. No groundwater was encountered in this boring. The location of the borings performed by GEI (2000) and American Geotechnical (2017) are shown in Figure 2. The pertinent boring logs from these investigations are provided in Attachment 2. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The area of the proposed drywell field is roughly bounded by Earle Lane to the east, Ripley Avenue to the north, Rindge Lane to the west, and Valor Christian Academy’s parking lot to the south (Figure 1). The location of the proposed improvements is currently a grass playfield. The surface topography drains to the southwest with a slight gradient. Maximum elevations within the subject area are approximately 75 ft AMSL with minimum elevations of approximately 70 ft AMSL. Subsurface Soils Based on the information obtained from the CPT sounding and previous soil investigation in and around the Site, the soils in the upper 5 to 10 ft consist of fills with classifications ranging from silty sands (SM) to fat clay (CH). The surficial fills are underlain by alluvium, which are generally classified as loose to medium dense silty sands (SM) in the upper 30 ft bgs and medium dense to very dense poorly graded silty sands (SP-SM) below 30 ft bgs. A review of the geologic map published by the California Geological Survey (CGS, 2016) indicates that the site is underlain by old eolian (Qoe) deposits (Figure 3). CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 Groundwater Maps of historic high groundwater conditions produced by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG 1997) indicate that historic high groundwater elevations are “deep throughout this area” without giving specific estimates of depth. A review of the County of Los Angeles groundwater monitoring wells interactive database (https://dpw.lacounty.gov/general/wells), indicates that no active monitoring wells are located within the footprint of the project. However, the database indicates that an active monitoring well located approximately 700 ft southeast of the Site recorded groundwater between 87 and 100 ft bgs (7.9 ft to -4.90 ft MSL) between 2000 and 2004. Based on the previous soil investigations and the current soil investigation, for conceptual design purposes the groundwater level can be assumed to be no shallower than 50 ft bgs. Environmental LA County requirements specify that stormwater infiltration should not be conducted in areas that pose a risk of causing pollutant mobilization. A site-specific investigation to assess potential pollutants was not conducted as part of this project. However, a review of the California State Water Resources Control Board tool “GeoTracker” (online at https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/), was performed to identify known environmental sites near the Site. GeoTracker is an online database that provides access to statewide environmental data and tracks regulatory data for the following types of sites: • Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) cleanup sites; • Permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) facilities ; • Cleanup Program Sites (CPS, also known as Site Cleanups [SC] and formerly known as Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups [SLIC] sites); • Military sites (including Military UST sites, Military Privatized sites, and Military Cleanup sites [formerly known as Department of Defense (DOD) non-UST]); • Land Disposal sites (Landfills, Surface Impoundments, Waste Piles, Land Treatment Units, Mining Units); • Composting Operations; • Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) sites; • Confined Animal / Concentrated Animal Feed Lots facilities; • Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) sites; and • Oil and Gas Monitoring sites (Aquifer Exemption, Produced Water Ponds, Underground Injection Control, Well Stimulation Projects). CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 A review of information available in the GeoTracker database indicates a former land disposal site (Dominguez Park Landfill) located approximately 1,700 ft south-southwest of the Site. An assessment of the site was performed in 1997 to ascertain the extent to which the landfill may still be impacting the environment and the groundwater resources of the region (Lofy Engineering, 1997). The evaluation included acquiring three groundwater samples within the area of the former landfill, performing laboratory analyses and evaluating the data. The report concludes that no hazardous materials were allowed in the landfill under the City of Redondo Beach's operating permit and no hazardous wastes are known to exist in the disposal site. The report also concludes there is no indication of measurable purgeable or semi-volatile organic compounds; no measurable presence of such heavy metals as mercury, cadmium, or lead; and the general minerals diffusing from the landfill are not grossly different (i.e., not an order of magnitude greater) than ambient levels. Lofy Engineering (2012) concludes that the former landfill site does not constitute a threat to the environment or that additional monitoring would alter the general conclusions suggested by the data obtained. Subsequent reports or data relating to the site were not discovered. Given the distance to the former landfill, pollutant mobilization due to stormwater infiltration at this site is not anticipated. The Site is located near an area that has seen former commercial uses and the absence of additional information on GeoTracker does not preclude the potential that there may be environmental contamination at the Site. During drywell installation, the presence of discoloration or odors typically associated with contamination should be noted and brought to the project team’s attention. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Liquefaction is a condition where high excess pore water pressure develops in partially or fully saturated soil (generally loose, saturated and cohesionless soils) as a result of earthquake loading. When the shear stress required for equilibrium of a soil mass is greater than the shear strength of the soil in its liquefied state, the soil loses a large portion of its shear resistance, as the effective stress of the soil goes to zero, causing a liquid-like response. According to mapping by the California Geological Survey (CGS, 1998), the Site is not located within a zone requiring special study due to liquefaction (Figure 4). The assumed historic high groundwater level deeper than 50 ft indicates the risk of liquefaction impacts to facilities at the surface is low. CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 Water infiltrated through the planned drywells has the potential to raise the groundwater elevation. However, given the consistency of alluvial soils encountered at depth, if groundwater increase is controlled below the upper 30 feet, there is not expected to be significant increase in the risk of liquefaction at the site. Seismic settlement may result from densification of loose soils due to strong shaking. Seismic induced (dry) settlements may occur in the loose sands encountered in the upper 30 ft bgs. Soils below 30 ft bgs are in a medium to very dense condition so seismic induced (dry) settlements are anticipated to be small below this depth. Seismic induced settlements should be investigated in more detail during design level evaluations. Slope Stability The topography at the Site is generally flat with no significant slopes. Therefore, the proposed improvements are not anticipated to contribute to slope instability. Surcharge on Adjacent Structures Proposed drywells are not anticipated to place an increased surcharge on adjacent structures or foundations. Expansive Soil Observations during hand augering for CPT testing and previous HSA boring logs indicate that near-surface site soil (fill layer) likely possesses a medium to high expansion potential due to fat clay content encountered. Based on this observation, there may be the potential for expansive soil to impact the proposed improvements at the ground surface. The soils beneath the fill layer (below 10ft) are generally silty sands (10-30 ft bgs) and poorly graded silty sands (below 30 ft bgs). Hence, the risk posed by expansive soils beneath the fill layers is anticipated to be small and is not anticipated to impact the proposed improvements. ESTIMATED DRYWELL INFILTRATION RATES A systematic approach was used to make estimates of likely drywell infiltration rate for the Site. This process included: • Reviewing CPT sounding logs to develop understanding of site stratigraphy and assess hydraulic conductivity of site soils based on published correlations to soil type; CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 • Computing estimated infiltration rates using semi empirical/semi analytical approaches with an assumed drywell geometry. A further description of this process is summarized below. Design Hydraulic Conductivity A design hydraulic conductivity value for use in the selected empirical method (i.e. Hvorslev solution, as outlined by Fang [1991] and Massmann [2004]) was developed based on the data from the CPT sounding carried out at the Site. Hydraulic conductivity values were estimated from CPT data using the correlations presented by Robertson (2010) that are function of the Soil Behavior Type Index (Ic). The hydraulic conductivity was derived from the CPT data every 2.5 to 3 cm along the depth of the CPT sounding. Figure 5 shows the CPT data and correlated hydraulic conductivity versus depth. An average hydraulic conductivity value (2.8E-4 ft/sec) was estimated using the CPT data from 50 to 56 ft bgs. Figure 5 also indicates the average hydraulic conductivity value plus one standard deviation applied (1.1E-3 ft/sec). Design Infiltration Rates Using the Hvorslev solution and the assumed average hydraulic conductivity range (mean and mean plus one standard deviation), the average drywell infiltration capacity (ultimate) is estimated at approximately 0.24 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 1 cfs, for a proposed design screen length of 16 ft bgs (44 to 60 ft bgs) and assuming 30 ft of head of water in the drywell chamber. The use of the mean plus one standard deviation hydraulic conductivity is consistent with Geosyntec’s experience regarding actual performance of drywells in similar conditions relative to CPT correlations. Based on the limited data evaluation from one CPT sounding, we recommend that while the conceptual drywell infiltration capacity (ultimate) at the Site may consider the upper- bound value of 1 cfs (corresponding to mean plus one standard deviation hydraulic conductivity), the lower-bound value of 0.24 cfs (corresponding to average hydraulic conductivity) may also be considered in contingency planning for the project. We recommend performing constant head infiltration tests and additional CPTs as part of design level geotechnical investigations to have a better understanding of the in-situ infiltration conditions. Drywell infiltration capacity derived from analytical tools are based on existing site conditions. The recommended infiltration capacity considers that appropriate regular maintenance will be carried out to help mitigate long term effects (e.g. sediment CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 accumulation or bio-accumulation) that may reduce the drywell capacity. The designer should apply appropriate factors of safety on top of these ultimate values to account for these conditions. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions relative to the planned drywells at the Site are based on the limited investigation described in this memorandum. • The expected subsurface soils at the Site consist predominantly of silty sands (SM) and poorly graded silty sands (SP-SM). These soil types are consistent with infiltration rates within the range of design for proposed improvements. • A hydraulic conductivity of 1.1E-3 ft/sec and an ultimate infiltration rate of 1 cfs can be assumed for preliminary design purposes of drywells with proposed screen interval between 44 to 60 ft bgs. These infiltration parameters, including the use of infiltration rates estimated using a mean plus standard deviation value for hydraulic conductivity, are based on Geosyntec’s experience regarding actual performance of drywells in similar conditions relative to CPT correlations. We also recommend that a scenario using the mean hydraulic conductivity and corresponding estimated infiltration rate of 0.24 cfs be considered in contingency planning for the project. • Liquefaction risks are not expected to be exacerbated by the planned drywell if operated so that mounding does not develop above 30 feet bgs. • Information available on the GeoTracker database indicates that the planned drywells has a low likelihood of mobilizing pollutants. • The preliminary conclusions presented in this memorandum should be confirmed by additional geotechnical investigation and testing prior to the start of the design phase of the project. CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 LIMITATIONS The memorandum and other materials resulting from Geosyntec’s related effort are not intended to be suitable for reuse on any project site other than the currently proposed development area as it may not contain sufficient or appropriate information for such uses. If this memorandum or portions of this memorandum are provided to contractors or included in specifications, it should be understood that they are provided for informational purposes only. Soil deposits may vary in type, strength, and many other important properties between points of exploration due to non-uniformity of the geologic formations or to man-made cut and fill operations. While we cannot evaluate the consistency of the properties of materials in areas not explored, the information presented in this memorandum assumes that the data obtained through the desktop study are reasonably representative of field conditions and conducive to interpolation and extrapolation. The investigation and evaluations were performed using generally accepted engineering approaches and principles available at this time and the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable Geotechnical Engineers practicing in this area. No other representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended in our report. We appreciate the opportunity to work on this project. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or comments or if you need additional information. Sincerely, Karthik Viswanathan, E.I.T. Chris Conkle, P.E., G.E. Engineer Principal Engineer 6/30/2023 CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 FIGURES AND ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 Exploration Location Map Figure 2 Previous Site Investigation Locations Figure 3 Regional Geologic Map Figure 4 Geologic Hazards Map Figure 5 CPT Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Depth Attachment 1 CPT Sounding Logs Attachment 2 Reference Borings CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 REFERENCES American Geotechnical, Inc (2017). Geotechnical Investigation Report, Upgrading of Ridge Lane and Yacht Club Way Pump Stations, File No. 5697-01, February 23, 2017 California Geological Survey, 2016, Geologic Map of the Long Beach 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California. California Geological Survey, 1998, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Torrance Quadrangle, Seismic Hazard Zones, Official Map Released: February 1, 1998. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Torrance 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. California State Water Resources Control Board, 2021, GeoTracker, online interactive mapping database at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. County of Los Angeles, 2017, Guidelines for Design, Investigation, and Reporting, Low Impacted Development Stormwater Infiltration, Administration Manual, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Geotechnical and Material Engineering Division. Document GS200.2. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, 2021, Groundwater Wells, online interactive mapping database at: https://dpw.lacounty.gov/general/wells/. Fang, H.Y. (1991) “Foundation Engineering Handbook,” Second Edition, Van Host and Reinhold. GEI (2000), Geo-environmental, Inc., Geotechnical Investigation Greenflag Drain, Redondo Beach, GEI Project No. 001-14, March 16, 2000. Lofy Engineering (1997), Additional Solid Waste Water Quality Assessment Test (SWAT) Monitoring, Dominguez Park Landfill, Redondo Beach , California, RWQCB Compliance File No. 89-094, November 5, 1997. Massmann, J. (2004) Technical Report, “An Approach for Estimating Infiltration Rates for Stormwater Infiltration Dry Wells”, prepared for Washington State Transportation Commission, Department of Transportation and in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, WA-RD 589.1. CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 Robertson P. K., 2010, Estimating In-situ Soil Permeability from CPT & CPTu, in 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), 1989, Procedure for Performing Field Permeability Testing by the Well Permeameter Method, USBR 7300-89. CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 FIGURES Figure 1 SITE MAP FULTON PLAYFIELD BEACH CITIES SCWP FEASIBILITY STUDY REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No: CWR0645 JULY 2021 #0 #0 #0 "/ #0 DB-1 A-2 AGSB-1 CPT-01D DB-2 \\WestLA-01\data\GIS\Projects\CWR0645-BeachCities_EWMP_2020\39_BoringLog_GW.mxd Legend "/CPT #0 GW Depth > 31 ft #0 GW Depth > 51 ft Existing Infrastructure Storm Drain Detention Basin New Project Components Basin Outlet to Drywells Drywells Modified Infrastructure Overflow Chamber Diversion Chamber Sliding Gate Figure 2 CWR0645 JULY 2021 ³ 50 0 5025 Feet UV107 §¨¦405 PREVIOUS SITE INVESTIGATION LOCATIONS FULTON PLAYFIELD BEACH CITIES SCWP FEASIBILITY STUDY REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA DRAFT Figure CWR0645 JULY 2021 3 Notes: Project Location Source: Geologic Map of The Long Beach 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California. Version 2.0. Published 2016 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP FULTON PLAYFIELD BEACH CITIES SCWP FEASIBILITY STUDY REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA Torrance Torrance Redondo Beach Lawndale Hermosa Beach Manhattan Beach \\WestLA-01\data\GIS\Projects\CWR0645-BeachCities_EWMP_2020\40_Geologic Hazards.mxd Legend Fulton Playfield Park Project Drainage Area Landslide Zone1 Liquefaction Zone2 City Limits Figure 4 CWR0645 July 2021 ³ 1. City of Los Angeles Hub, 2018 2. California Geologic Survey, 2018 1,000 0 1,000500 Feet §¨¦110§¨¦405 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS MAP FULTON PLAYFIELD BEACH CITIES SCWP FEASIBILITY STUDY REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA DRAFT §¨¦105 Figure 5 CPT HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY VERSUS DEPTH FULTON PLAYFIELD BEACH CITIES SCWP FEASIBILITY STUDY REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No: CWR0645 JULY 2021 CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 ATTACHMENT 1 CPT Sounding Logs GREGG DRILLING, LLC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES 2726 Walnut Ave.  Signal Hill, California 90755  (562) 427-6899  FAX (562) 427-3314 950 Howe Road.  Martinez, California 94553  (925) 313-5800  FAX (925) 313-0302 www.greggdrilling.com May 6, 2021 Geosyntec Attn: Scott Struck Subject: CPT Site Investigation 3rd St., Greenwood Park & Anderson Park Redondo & Hermosa Beach, California GREGG Project Number: D1215046 – part 2 Dear Mr. Struck: The following report presents the results of GREGG Drilling Cone Penetration Test investigation for the above referenced site. The following testing services were performed: 1 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTU) 2 Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPD) 3 Seismic Cone Penetration Tests (SCPTU) 4 UVOST Laser Induced Fluorescence (UVOST) 5 Groundwater Sampling (GWS) 6 Soil Sampling (SS) 7 Vapor Sampling (VS) 8 Pressuremeter Testing (PMT) 9 Vane Shear Testing (VST) 10 Dilatometer Testing (DMT) A list of reference papers providing additional background on the specific tests conducted is provided in the bibliography following the text of the report. If you would like a copy of any of these publications or should you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949-903-6873. Sincerely, Gregg Drilling, LLC. CPT Reports Team Gregg Drilling, LLC. GREGG DRILLING, LLC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES 2726 Walnut Ave.  Signal Hill, California 90755  (562) 427-6899  FAX (562) 427-3314 950 Howe Road.  Martinez, California 94553  (925) 313-5800  FAX (925) 313-0302 www.greggdrilling.com Cone Penetration Test Sounding Summary -Table 1- CPT Sounding Identification Date Termination Depth (feet) Depth of Groundwater Samples (feet) Depth of Soil Samples (feet) Depth of Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (feet) CPT-01-D 5/13/2021 60.04 - - 60.0 GREGG DRILLING, LLC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES 2726 Walnut Ave.  Signal Hill, California 90755  (562) 427-6899  FAX (562) 427-3314 950 Howe Road.  Martinez, California 94553  (925) 313-5800  FAX (925) 313-0302 www.greggdrilling.com Bibliography Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M., “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice” E & FN Spon. ISBN 0 419 23750, 1997 Roberston, P.K., “Soil Classification using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, 1990 pp. 151-158. Mayne, P.W., “NHI (2002) Manual on Subsurface Investigations: Geotechnical Site Characterization”, available through www.ce.gatech.edu/~geosys/Faculty/Mayne/papers/index.html, Section 5.3, pp. 107-112. Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella, D. Gillespie and A. Rice, “Seismic CPT to Measure In-Situ Shear Wave Velocity”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 8, 1986 pp. 791-803. Robertson, P.K., Sully, J., Woeller, D.J., Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M., and Gillespie, D.J., "Guidelines for Estimating Consolidation Parameters in Soils from Piezocone Tests", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, August 1992, pp. 539-550. Robertson, P.K., T. Lunne and J.J.M. Powell, “Geo-Environmental Application of Penetration Testing”, Geotechnical Site Characterization, Robertson & Mayne (editors), 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 939 4 pp 35-47. Campanella, R.G. and I. Weemees, “Development and Use of An Electrical Resistivity Cone for Groundwater Contamination Studies”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5, 1990 pp. 557-567. DeGroot, D.J. and A.J. Lutenegger, “Reliability of Soil Gas Sampling and Characterization Techniques”, International Site Characterization Conference - Atlanta, 1998. Woeller, D.J., P.K. Robertson, T.J. Boyd and Dave Thomas, “Detection of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Contaminants Using the UVIF-CPT”, 53rd Canadian Geotechnical Conference Montreal, QC October pp. 733-739, 2000. Zemo, D.A., T.A. Delfino, J.D. Gallinatti, V.A. Baker and L.R. Hilpert, “Field Comparison of Analytical Results from Discrete-Depth Groundwater Samplers” BAT EnviroProbe and QED HydroPunch, Sixth national Outdoor Action Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada Proceedings, 1992, pp 299-312. Copies of ASTM Standards are available through www.astm.org Revised 02/05/2015  i Cone Penetration Testing Procedure (CPT)  Gregg Drilling carries out all Cone Penetration Tests  (CPT) using an integrated electronic cone system,  Figure CPT.   The cone takes measurements of tip resistance (qc),  sleeve resistance (fs), and penetration pore water  pressure (u2). Measurements are taken at either 2.5 or  5 cm intervals during penetration to provide a nearly  continuous profile. CPT data reduction and basic  interpretation is performed in real time facilitating on‐ site decision making.  The above mentioned  parameters are stored electronically for further  analysis and reference.  All CPT soundings are  performed in accordance with revised ASTM standards  (D 5778‐12).  The 5mm thick porous plastic filter element is located  directly behind the cone tip in the u2 location.  A new  saturated filter element is used on each sounding to  measure both penetration pore pressures as well as  measurements during a dissipation test (PPDT).  Prior  to each test, the filter element is fully saturated with  oil under vacuum pressure to improve accuracy.  When the sounding is completed, the test hole is  backfilled according to client specifications.  If grouting  is used, the procedure generally consists of pushing a  hollow tremie pipe with a “knock out” plug to the  termination depth of the CPT hole.  Grout is then  pumped under pressure as the tremie pipe is pulled  from the hole.  Disruption or further contamination to  the site is therefore minimized.  Figure CPT Revised 02/05/2015  ii Gregg 15cm2 Standard Cone Specifications    Dimensions  Cone base area  15 cm2  Sleeve surface area  225 cm2  Cone net area ratio 0.80    Specifications  Cone load cell     Full scale range  180 kN (20 tons)    Overload capacity 150%    Full scale tip stress 120 MPa (1,200 tsf)    Repeatability 120 kPa (1.2 tsf)    Sleeve load cell     Full scale range  31 kN (3.5 tons)    Overload capacity 150%    Full scale sleeve stress 1,400 kPa (15 tsf)    Repeatability 1.4 kPa (0.015 tsf)    Pore pressure transducer     Full scale range  7,000 kPa (1,000 psi)    Overload capacity 150%    Repeatability 7 kPa (1 psi)    Note: The repeatability during field use will depend somewhat on ground conditions, abrasion,  maintenance and zero load stability.    Revised 2/05/2015  i Cone Penetration Test Data & Interpretation  The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data collected are presented in graphical and electronic form in the  report.  The plots include interpreted Soil Behavior Type (SBT) based on the charts described by  Robertson (1990).  Typical plots display SBT based on the non‐normalized charts of Robertson et al  (1986).  For CPT soundings deeper than 30m, we recommend the use of the normalized charts of  Robertson (1990) which can be displayed as SBTn, upon request.   The report also includes  spreadsheet output of computer calculations of basic interpretation in terms of SBT and SBTn and  various geotechnical parameters using current published correlations based on the comprehensive  review by Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997), as well as recent updates by Professor Robertson  (Guide to Cone Penetration Testing, 2015). The interpretations are presented only as a guide for  geotechnical use and should be carefully reviewed.  Gregg Drilling & Testing Inc. does not warranty  the correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted by the  software and does not assume any liability for use of the results in any design or review. The user  should be fully aware of the techniques and limitations of any method used in the software.  Some  interpretation methods require input of the groundwater level to calculate vertical effective stress.   An estimate of the in‐situ groundwater level has been made based on field observations and/or CPT  results, but should be verified by the user.  A summary of locations and depths is available in Table 1.  Note that all penetration depths  referenced in the data are with respect to the existing ground surface.  Note that it is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based solely on qt, fs, and u2.  In these  situations, experience, judgment, and an assessment of the pore pressure dissipation data should be  used to infer the correct soil behavior type.                               Figure SBT (After Robertson et al., 1986) –Note: Colors may vary slightly compared to plots ZONE SBT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sensitive, fine grained Organic materials Clay Silty clay to clay Clayey silt to silty clay Sandy silt to clayey silt Silty sand to sandy silt Sand to silty sand Sand Gravely sand to sand Very stiff fine grained* Sand to clayey sand* *over consolidated or cemented Revised 02/05/2015  i Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Interpretation  Gregg uses a proprietary CPT interpretation and plotting software.  The software takes the CPT data and  performs basic interpretation in terms of soil behavior type (SBT) and various geotechnical parameters  using current published empirical correlations based on the comprehensive review by Lunne, Robertson  and Powell (1997).  The interpretation is presented in tabular format using MS Excel. The interpretations  are presented only as a guide for geotechnical use and should be carefully reviewed.  Gregg does not  warranty the correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted by the  software and does not assume any liability for any use of the results in any design or review.  The user  should be fully aware of the techniques and limitations of any method used in the software.    The following provides a summary of the methods used for the interpretation.  Many of the empirical  correlations to estimate geotechnical parameters have constants that have a range of values depending  on soil type, geologic origin and other factors.  The software uses ‘default’ values that have been  selected to provide, in general, conservatively low estimates of the various geotechnical parameters.    Input:  1 Units for display (Imperial or metric) (atm. pressure, pa = 0.96 tsf or 0.1 MPa)  2 Depth interval to average results (ft or m).  Data are collected at either 0.02 or 0.05m and  can be averaged every 1, 3 or 5 intervals.  3 Elevation of ground surface (ft or m)  4 Depth to water table, zw (ft or m) – input required  5 Net area ratio for cone, a (default to 0.80)  6 Relative Density constant, CDr  (default to 350)  7 Young’s modulus number for sands, α (default to 5)  8 Small strain shear modulus number  a. for sands, SG (default to 180 for  SBTn  5, 6, 7)  b. for clays, CG (default to  50  for  SBTn 1, 2, 3 & 4)    9 Undrained shear strength cone factor for clays, Nkt (default to 15)  10 Over Consolidation ratio number, kocr (default to 0.3)  11 Unit weight of water, (default to γw = 62.4 lb/ft3 or 9.81 kN/m3)    Column  1 Depth, z, (m) – CPT data is collected in meters  2 Depth (ft)  3 Cone resistance, qc (tsf or MPa)  4 Sleeve resistance, fs (tsf or MPa)  5 Penetration pore pressure, u (psi or MPa), measured behind the cone (i.e. u2)  6 Other – any additional data  7 Total cone resistance, qt (tsf or MPa)  qt = qc + u (1‐a)  Revised 02/05/2015  ii 8 Friction Ratio, Rf (%)     Rf = (fs/qt) x 100%  9 Soil Behavior Type (non‐normalized), SBT  see note  10 Unit weight, γ (pcf or kN/m3)    based on SBT, see note  11 Total overburden stress, σv (tsf)   σvo = σ z  12 In‐situ pore pressure, uo (tsf)   uo = γ w (z ‐ zw)  13 Effective overburden stress, σ'vo (tsf )   σ'vo = σvo ‐ uo  14 Normalized cone resistance, Qt1      Qt1= (qt ‐ σvo) / σ'vo   15 Normalized friction ratio, Fr (%)    Fr = fs / (qt ‐ σvo) x 100%  16 Normalized Pore Pressure ratio, Bq     Bq = u – uo / (qt ‐ σvo)  17 Soil Behavior Type (normalized), SBTn  see note  18 SBTn Index, Ic     see note     19 Normalized Cone resistance, Qtn (n varies with Ic)  see note  20 Estimated permeability, kSBT (cm/sec or ft/sec) see note  21 Equivalent SPT N60, blows/ft    see note  22 Equivalent SPT (N1)60 blows/ft    see note  23 Estimated Relative Density, Dr, (%)    see note  24 Estimated Friction Angle, φ', (degrees)  see note  25 Estimated Young’s modulus, Es (tsf)    see note  26 Estimated small strain Shear modulus, Go (tsf) see note  27 Estimated Undrained shear strength, su (tsf)  see note  28 Estimated Undrained strength ratio     su/σv’     29 Estimated Over Consolidation ratio, OCR  see note    Notes:  1 Soil Behavior Type (non‐normalized), SBT (Lunne et al., 1997 and table below)    2 Unit weight, γ either constant at 119 pcf or based on Non‐normalized SBT  (Lunne et al.,  1997 and table below)    3 Soil Behavior Type (Normalized), SBTn  Lunne et al. (1997)    4 SBTn Index, Ic  Ic = ((3.47 – log Qt1)2 + (log Fr + 1.22)2)0.5    5 Normalized Cone resistance, Qtn (n varies with Ic)    Qtn = ((qt ‐ σvo)/pa) (pa/(σvo)n  and recalculate Ic, then iterate:    When Ic < 1.64,     n = 0.5 (clean sand)  When Ic > 3.30,     n = 1.0 (clays)  When 1.64 < Ic < 3.30,  n = (Ic – 1.64)0.3 + 0.5   Iterate until the change in n, ∆n < 0.01     Revised 02/05/2015  iii 6 Estimated permeability, kSBT based on Normalized SBTn (Lunne et al., 1997 and table below)      7 Equivalent SPT N60, blows/ft  Lunne et al. (1997)   60 a N )/p(qt  = 8.5   4.6 I1 c   8 Equivalent SPT (N1)60 blows/ft             (N1)60 = N60 CN,   where CN = (pa/σvo)0.5    9 Relative Density, Dr, (%)    Dr2 = Qtn / CDr  Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8    Show ‘N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9    10 Friction Angle, φ', (degrees) tan φ ' =      29.0' qlog68.2 1 vo c   Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8  Show’N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9    11 Young’s modulus, Es      Es = α qt     Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8  Show ‘N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9    12      Small strain shear modulus, Go     a. Go = SG (qt  σ'vo pa)1/3   For  SBTn 5, 6, 7  b. Go = CG qt  For  SBTn 1, 2, 3& 4  Show ‘N/A’ in zones 8 & 9    13 Undrained shear strength, su    su = (qt ‐ σvo) / Nkt  Only SBTn 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9  Show ‘N/A’ in zones 5, 6, 7 & 8    14 Over Consolidation ratio, OCR  OCR = kocr Qt1  Only SBTn 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9  Show ‘N/A’ in zones 5, 6, 7 & 8      The following updated and simplified SBT descriptions have been used in the software:    SBT Zones     SBTn Zones  1 sensitive fine grained  1  sensitive fine grained  2 organic soil    2  organic soil  3 clay     3 clay  4 clay & silty clay    4 clay & silty clay  5 clay & silty clay  6 sandy silt & clayey silt      Revised 02/05/2015  iv 7 silty sand & sandy silt  5 silty sand & sandy silt  8 sand & silty sand    6 sand & silty sand  9 sand   10 sand    7 sand  11 very dense/stiff soil*  8 very dense/stiff soil*  12 very dense/stiff soil*  9 very dense/stiff soil*  *heavily overconsolidated and/or cemented    Track when soils fall with zones of same description and print that description (i.e. if soils fall  only within SBT zones 4 & 5, print ‘clays & silty clays’)      Revised 02/05/2015  v Estimated Permeability (see Lunne et al., 1997)    SBTn  Permeability (ft/sec)  (m/sec)      1  3x 10‐8    1x 10‐8     2  3x 10‐7    1x 10‐7     3  1x 10‐9    3x 10‐10   4  3x 10‐8    1x 10‐8   5  3x 10‐6    1x 10‐6     6  3x 10‐4    1x 10‐4     7  3x 10‐2    1x 10‐2     8    3x 10‐6    1x 10‐6     9  1x 10‐8    3x 10‐9         Estimated Unit Weight (see Lunne et al., 1997)    SBT  Approximate Unit Weight (lb/ft3)  (kN/m3)    1  111.4     17.5  2     79.6     12.5  3  111.4     17.5  4  114.6     18.0  5  114.6     18.0  6  114.6     18.0  7  117.8     18.5  8  120.9     19.0  9  124.1     19.5  10  127.3     20.0  11  130.5     20.5  12  120.9     19.0           Revised 02.05.2015  i Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT)    Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT’s) conducted at various intervals can be used to measure  equilibrium water pressure (at the time of the CPT).  If conditions are hydrostatic, the equilibrium water  pressure can be used to determine the approximate depth of the ground water table.  A PPDT is  conducted when penetration is halted at specific intervals determined by the field representative.  The  variation of the penetration pore pressure (u) with time is measured behind the tip of the cone and  recorded.    Pore pressure dissipation data can be  interpreted to provide estimates of:   Equilibrium piezometric pressure   Phreatic Surface   In situ horizontal coefficient of  consolidation (ch)   In situ horizontal coefficient of  permeability (kh)  In order to correctly interpret the  equilibrium piezometric pressure and/or the  phreatic surface, the pore pressure must be  monitored until it reaches equilibrium,  Figure PPDT.  This time is commonly referred  to as t100, the point at which 100% of the  excess pore pressure has dissipated.  A complete reference on pore pressure  dissipation tests is presented by Robertson  et al. 1992 and Lunne et al. 1997.  A summary of the pore pressure dissipation  tests are summarized in Table 1.    Figure PPDT Revised 02/05/2015  i Seismic Cone Penetration Testing (SCPT)  Seismic Cone Penetration Testing (SCPT) can be conducted at various intervals during the Cone  Penetration Test.  Shear wave velocity (Vs) can then be calculated over a specified interval with depth. A  small interval for seismic testing, such as 1‐1.5m (3‐5ft) allows for a detailed look at the shear wave profile  with depth. Conversely, a larger interval such as 3‐6m (10‐20ft) allows for a more average shear wave  velocity to be calculated. Gregg’s cones have a horizontally active geophone located 0.2m (0.66ft) behind  the tip.    To conduct the seismic shear wave test, the penetration of the cone is stopped and the rods are decoupled  from the rig.  An automatic hammer is triggered to send a shear wave into the soil. The distance from the  source to the cone is calculated knowing the total depth of the cone and the horizontal offset distance  between the source and the cone.  To calculate an interval velocity, a minimum of two tests must be  performed at two different  depths. The arrival times  between the two wave traces  are compared to obtain the  difference in time (∆t). The  difference in depth is  calculated (∆d) and velocity  can be determined using the  simple equation: v = ∆d/∆t    Multiple wave traces can be  recorded at the same depth  to improve quality of the  data.    A complete reference on  seismic cone penetration  tests is presented by  Robertson et al. 1986 and  Lunne et al. 1997.    A summary the shear wave  velocities, arrival times and  wave traces are provided  with the report.      Figure SCPT (S) 1 2 t 1 2 12 12 12 Revised 3/09/2015  i  Groundwater Sampling  Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc. conducts groundwater  sampling using a sampler as shown in Figure GWS.  The groundwater sampler has a retrievable stainless  steel or disposable PVC screen with steel drop off  tip. This allows for samples to be taken at multiple  depth intervals within the same sounding location.  In areas of slower water recharge, provisions may  be made to set temporary PVC well screens during  sampling to allow the pushing equipment to  advance to the next sample location while the  groundwater is allowed to infiltrate.    The groundwater sampler operates by advancing  44.5mm (1¾ inch) hollow push rods with the filter  tip in a closed configuration to the base of the  desired sampling interval. Once at the desired  sample depth, the push rods are retracted; exposing  the encased filter screen and allowing groundwater  to infiltrate hydrostatically from the formation into  the inlet screen. A small diameter bailer  (approximately ½ or ¾ inch) is lowered through the  push rods into the screen section for sample  collection. The number of downhole trips with the  bailer and time necessary to complete the sample  collection at each depth interval is a function of  sampling protocols, volume requirements, and the  yield characteristics and storage capacity of the  formation. Upon completion of sample collection,  the push rods and sampler, with the exception of  the PVC screen and steel drop off tip are retrieved  to the ground surface, decontaminated and  prepared for the next sampling event.    For a detailed reference on direct push groundwater  sampling, refer to Zemo et. al., 1992. Figure GWS Revised 02/05/2015  i Soil Sampling  Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc. uses a piston‐type  push‐in sampler to obtain small soil samples  without generating any soil cuttings, Figure SS.  Two different types of samplers (12 and 18 inch)  are used depending on the soil type and density.  The soil sampler is initially pushed in a "closed"  position to the desired sampling interval using  the CPT pushing equipment. Keeping the sampler  closed minimizes the potential of cross  contamination. The inner tip of the sampler is  then retracted leaving a hollow soil sampler with  inner 1¼” diameter sample tubes. The hollow  sampler is then pushed in a locked "open"  position to collect a soil sample. The filled  sampler and push rods are then retrieved to the  ground surface. Because the soil enters the  sampler at a constant rate, the opportunity for  100% recovery is increased. For environmental  analysis, the soil sample tube ends are sealed  with Teflon and plastic caps. Often, a longer "split  tube" can be used for geotechnical sampling.    For a detailed reference on direct push soil  sampling, refer to Robertson et al, 1998.  Figure SS CLIENT: GEOSYNTECGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 60.04 ft, Date: 5/13/2021GREENWOOD PARK, REDONDO/HERMOSA BEACH, CACPT: CPT-01DSITE:FIELD REP: REHANSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)8006004002000Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSandSandSand & silty sandSandSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 5/17/2021, 11:01:58 AM1Project file: C:\CPT-2021\5046sh-part2\REPORT\215046SH.cpt CLIENT: GEOSYNTECGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 60.04 ft, Date: 5/13/2021GREENWOOD PARK, REDONDO/HERMOSA BEACH, CACPT: CPT-01DSITE:FIELD REP: REHANSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)8006004002000Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)100806040200Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSandSandSand & silty sandSandSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 5/17/2021, 11:01:58 AM2Project file: C:\CPT-2021\5046sh-part2\REPORT\215046SH.cpt CLIENT: GEOSYNTECGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 60.04 ft, Date: 5/13/2021GREENWOOD PARK, REDONDO/HERMOSA BEACH, CACPT: CPT-01DSITE:FIELD REP: REHANSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)8006004002000Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction ratioShear Wave velocityHAND AUGERVs (ft/s)2,0001,5001,0005000Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Custom DataShear Wave velocitySoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandSandSandSand & silty sandSandSand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soilSand & silty sandCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 5/17/2021, 11:01:58 AM3Project file: C:\CPT-2021\5046sh-part2\REPORT\215046SH.cpt 010203040506070.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0Depth (Feet)Time (ms)Waveforms for Sounding CPT-01D Geophone Offset: 0.66 Feet Source Offset: 1.67 Feet 05/13/21 Test Depth (Feet) Geophone Depth (Feet) Waveform Ray Path (Feet) Incremental Distance (Feet) Characteristic Arrival Time (ms) Incremental Time Interval (ms) Interval Velocity (Ft/Sec) Interval Depth (Feet) 5.41 4.75 5.04 5.04 9.4500 10.17 9.51 9.66 4.62 14.4000 4.9500 932.9 7.13 15.09 14.43 14.53 4.87 18.4000 4.0000 1218.0 11.97 20.01 19.35 19.42 4.90 23.5000 5.1000 960.2 16.89 25.92 25.26 25.31 5.89 29.7500 6.2500 942.2 22.31 30.18 29.52 29.57 4.26 33.6000 3.8500 1105.7 27.39 35.27 34.61 34.65 5.08 38.2000 4.6000 1104.0 32.07 40.19 39.53 39.57 4.92 40.8500 2.6500 1855.2 37.07 45.11 44.45 44.48 4.92 44.9500 4.1000 1199.4 41.99 50.20 49.54 49.56 5.08 48.9500 4.0000 1270.5 46.99 55.12 54.46 54.48 4.92 52.5500 3.6000 1366.3 52.00 60.04 59.38 59.40 4.92 55.6500 3.1000 1586.8 56.92 Shear Wave Velocity Calculations GREENWOOD PARK CPT-01D Sounding:Depth (ft):Site:Engineer:GREGG DRILLING & TESTINGPore Pressure Dissipation TestCPT-01D60.04GREENWOOD PARKREHAN00.511.522.533.544.550 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Pore Pressure (psi)Time (seconds) CWR0645/Fulton Playfield - Final Geotech Memo_7.15.2021 ATTACHMENT 2 Reference Borings Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Replacement Projects Feasibility Report October 2021 Updated Beach Cities EWMP – Herondo Project Feasibility Attachment E Initial Geotechnical Investigation Summary Report Hermosa Beach Draft- For Discussion Purposes CWR0645/Hermosa Beach - Draft Memo DRAFT Memorandum Date: September 24, 2021 To: Curtis Fang, P.E. Scott Struck, Ph.D., ENV SP From: Rehan Khan Chris Conkle, P.E., G.E. Subject: Limited Geotechnical Investigation and Infiltration Evaluation Beach Cities SCWP Feasibility Study Hermosa Beach, California This memorandum summarizes the geotechnical investigation and results of infiltration evaluations which were conducted as part of the Beach Cities SCWP Feasibility Study. To assist in developing conceptual designs for the Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells portion of the project investigations were performed at two locations in Hermosa Beach, California: • Parking lot located at the southeast quadrant of the intersection of 3rd Street and Pacific Coast Highway (3rd Street Site). • Greenwood Park Site: Located north of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation Boulevard. These evaluations were conducted in accordance with the Safe Clean Water Program (SCWP) Feasibility Study Guidelines, prepared in conjunction with the updated Enhanced Watershed Management Plan (EWMP) for the South Bay Beach Cities. The project is planned to consist of installation of drywells within the project drainage area to capture and infiltrate a portion of surface water runoff generated to improve the water quality and increase groundwater recharge. This initial study is geared towards evaluating whether these sites could be potential candidates for installation of infiltration systems prior to a detailed study. The approximate locations of are provided in Figure 1. A schematic layout of the distributed drywells project including the drainage area and planned improvements relative to the investigation locations are shown on Figure 2. This memorandum documents the field investigation, the desktop review of relevant site data, and provides a discussion of recommended drywell design infiltration rates calculated based on assessments of likely soil hydraulic conductivity estimated from the Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) conducted at this site. The memorandum is provided to support development of design concepts for the project with the understanding that additional investigations and evaluation related to geotechnical conditions will be conducted at the project’s design phase. Draft- For Discussion Purposes CWR0645/Hermosa Beach - Draft Memo EVALUATION APPROACH A systematic approach was utilized to estimate the drywell design infiltration capacity for the project. CPT soundings were advanced at each site. Hydraulic conductivity estimates were then made for the soils encountered at the CPT sounding locations based on correlations with published data. Based on this evaluation, Geosyntec developed estimates of drywell infiltration capacity using empirical/analytical correlations. Detailed discussion of the evaluations and the design infiltration capacity for each site are provided in the following sections. SITE SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Limited geotechnical investigations were carried out at each site. The investigations included the following tasks: • Reviewing publicly available information regarding site history, local groundwater elevations, previous geotechnical investigations near the sites, records of adjacent environmental remediations from GeoTracker and other relevant documents; • Performing a limited geotechnical field investigation consisting of one (1) CPT sounding at each of the two locations; • Evaluating drywell infiltration capacity using hydraulic conductivity values obtained from correlations with CPT data; • Evaluating soil conditions and potential geologic hazards anticipated in the project area; and • Preparing this memorandum summarizing findings and recommendations. CPT Investigation The CPT investigation consisted of advancing one (1) CPT sounding to a depth of 60 feet below ground surface (ft bgs) at Greenwood Park Site and 1 CPT to a depth of 52 ft bgs at the 3rd Street Site. CPT refusal was encountered at 52 ft bgs at 3rd Street site and the investigation was unable to reach the originally planned termination depth of 60 ft bgs. A summary of the CPT investigation is provided in Attachment 1. The locations of the CPT soundings are indicated on Figures 1 and 2. The CPT soundings were performed in general accordance with ASTM D5778 using a 15 cm2 cone which measured and recorded cone resistance, sleeve friction, and dynamic pore pressure at 2.5 cm intervals. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions Greenwood Park Site: The site is a grass-covered open field. The surface topography gently slopes down from the west side (approximate EL 105 ft) to the east side (approximate EL 100 ft). Draft- For Discussion Purposes CWR0645/Hermosa Beach - Draft Memo 3rd Street Site: The site is an asphaltic concrete parking lot with residences and businesses on the east and west sides and bounded by 2nd Street and 3rd Street on the south and north sides, respectively. The site was relatively level (approximate EL 87 ft). Subsurface Soils Based on the information obtained from the CPT soundings at these sites, the subsurface soils to the termination depths of the soundings (about 52 to 60 feet) consist of intermittent layers of silty sands, clean sands, and dense gravelly sands. A review of the geologic map published by the California Geological Survey (CGS, 2016) indicates that the sites are underlain by eolian (Qe) deposits (Figure 3). Penetration resistances in these materials at depths below 15 ft were significant (corrected tip resistance exceeding 200 tsf) indicating “very dense” soils. The CPTs may have encountered older “terrace” deposits at depth which regional geologic maps generally described as dense to very dense sands and silty sands. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered to the maximum depths explored (about 52 to 60 feet) at these sites. Based on a review of the Historic High Groundwater Contour Map for the Redondo Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle (CGS, 1998), the historic high groundwater elevation in our project area appears to be slightly more than 10 ft. Environmental LA County requirements specify that stormwater infiltration should not be conducted in areas that pose a risk of causing pollutant mobilization. A site-specific investigation to assess potential pollutants was not conducted as part of this project. However, a review of the California State Water Resources Control Board tool “GeoTracker” (online at https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/), was performed to identify known environmental sites near our project sites. GeoTracker is an online database that provides access to statewide environmental data and tracks regulatory data for the following types of sites: • Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) cleanup sites; • Permitted Underground Storage Tank (UST) facilities; • Cleanup Program Sites (CPS, also known as Site Cleanups [SC] and formerly known as Spills, Leaks, Investigations, and Cleanups [SLIC] sites); • Military sites (including Military UST sites, Military Privatized sites, and Military Cleanup sites [formerly known as Department of Defense (DOD) non-UST]); • Land Disposal sites (Landfills, Surface Impoundments, Waste Piles, Land Treatment Units, Mining Units); Draft- For Discussion Purposes CWR0645/Hermosa Beach - Draft Memo • Composting Operations; • Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) sites; • Confined Animal / Concentrated Animal Feed Lots facilities; • Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) sites; and • Oil and Gas Monitoring sites (Aquifer Exemption, Produced Water Ponds, Underground Injection Control, Well Stimulation Projects). A review of information available in the GeoTracker database indicates a former gas station site (Tosco S.S./76 Station 2947) located approximately 900 ft south of the 3rd Street site. A site quarterly report prepared in October 2007 describes that the site maintained 4 USTs and two dispenser islands at the time of the report preparation (TRC Solutions, 2007). The report further describes that soil samples were collected for analytical testing in 1998, 1999 and 2006 in the vicinity of the dispenser islands. Approximately 55 tons of hydrocarbon impacted soils were removed from the site based on the 1998 investigation and analysis. Approximately 24 tons of hydrocarbon impacted soils were removed from the site based on the 1999 investigation and analysis. The investigations performed in 2006 indicated detectable concentrations of TPH-G, ethylbenzene and total xylenes in one of the four borings advanced. The report concludes that no additional cleanup was necessary for the site, as Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) had granted case closure for the site in the third quarter of 2007. Subsequent reports of data relating to the sire were not discovered. Given the distance to the former gas station and the former station being downslope from the 3rd Street site, pollutant mobilization due to stormwater infiltration at this site is not anticipated. A gas station site (Mobil #11-E3F) is located approximately 1,900 ft north of the 3rd Street site and approximately 400 ft southwest of the Greenwood Park site. A soil assessment report and request for case closure prepared in June 2008 describes that the site maintains 4 USTs and two dispenser islands at the time of the report preparation (Environmental Resolutions, Inc., 2008). The soil assessment was performed for additional lateral soil assessment adjacent to an existing dispenser island where fuel constituents were previously detected in soil samples collected in April 2001. The assessment included advancing two hollow-stem auger borings to 45-ft bgs to collect soil samples. Soil samples were analyzed in an on-site mobile laboratory. The report concludes that the extents of fuel constituents in the soil had been delineated both vertically and laterally. Concentrations of fuel constituents were either not detected or were well below the levels typically of agency concern. A Site Closure Proposal Form was later submitted in July 2009 following a meeting between ExxonMobil and LACDPW (Environmental Resolutions, Inc., 2009) to review investigations conducted at the site to date. The site closure proposal form was submitted per LACDPW’s statement that it would further consider the site for closure. Given the distance to the gas station from the 3rd Street site and the gas station being downslope from the Greenwood Park site, pollutant mobilization due to stormwater infiltration at these sites is not anticipated. Draft- For Discussion Purposes CWR0645/Hermosa Beach - Draft Memo Multiple LUST cleanup sites are located within a 2,000 ft radius from the 3rd Street Site and Greenwood Park sites. These cleanup sites are marked as completed (case closed) during the late 2000s. The primary potential contaminants of concern at these cleanup sites are gasoline or aviation based constituents. Reports or data relating to the cleanup activities performed at these site were not discovered. Few Permitted USTs are also located within a 2,000 ft radius from the 3rd Street Site and Greenwood Park sites. Reports or data related to these permitted USTs were also not discovered. The 3rd Street site and the Greenwood Park site are located near an area that has seen former commercial uses and the absence of additional information on GeoTracker does not preclude the potential that there may be environmental contamination at the Sites. During drywell installation, the presence of discoloration or odors typically associated with contamination should be noted and brought to the project team’s attention. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS Liquefaction and Seismic Settlement Liquefaction is a condition where high excess pore water pressure develops in partially or fully saturated soil (generally loose, saturated and cohesionless soils) as a result of earthquake loading. When the shear stress required for equilibrium of a soil mass is greater than the shear strength of the soil in its liquefied state, the soil loses a large portion of its shear resistance, as the effective stress of the soil goes to zero, causing a liquid-like response. According to mapping by the California Geological Survey (CGS, 2006), the sites are not located within a zone requiring special study due to liquefaction (Figure 2). The CPT soundings performed did not have any indication of groundwater at either site. However, historic high groundwater depth is approximately 10 ft bgs based on the Historic High Groundwater Contour Map for the Redondo Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle (CGS, 1998). The penetration resistance is frequently used as a screening requirement regarding the potential for liquefaction induced settlement. When cone penetration test soundings are made, the corrected cone penetration test tip resistances of greater than 160 tsf in coarse grained soils has been established by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (2009) as a criteria to exclude soils from further evaluation. At the two locations, the penetration resistances measured below 12.5 ft bgs exceed the 160 tsf threshold indicating that liquefaction is unlikely below the historic high groundwater elevation. Once final location of infiltration features are established additional geotechnical investigations should be conducted to confirm conditions encountered at those locations are similar. Draft- For Discussion Purposes CWR0645/Hermosa Beach - Draft Memo Slope Stability The topography at the sites is either generally flat or consist of very gentle slopes. Therefore, the proposed improvements are not anticipated to contribute to slope instability. Surcharge on Adjacent Structures Proposed drywells are not anticipated to place an increased surcharge on adjacent structures or foundations. Expansive Soil Observations during hand augering for CPT testing and the CPT logs indicate that the near-surface site soil likely possesses a low expansion potential. Hence, the risk posed by expansive soils to the proposed improvements is anticipated to be small. ESTIMATED DRYWELL INFILTRATION RATES A systematic approach was used to make estimates of likely drywell infiltration rate for the Site. This process included: • Reviewing CPT sounding logs to develop understanding of site stratigraphy and assess hydraulic conductivity of site soils based on published correlations to soil type; • Computing estimated infiltration rates using semi empirical/semi analytical approaches with an assumed drywell geometry. A further description of this process is summarized below. Estimated Hydraulic Conductivity A hydraulic conductivity value for use in the selected empirical method (i.e. Hvorslev solution, as outlined by Fang [1991] and Massmann [2004]) was developed based on the data from the CPT sounding carried out at each site. Hydraulic conductivity values were estimated from CPT data using the correlations presented by Robertson (2010) that are function of the Soil Behavior Type Index (Ic). The hydraulic conductivity was derived from the CPT data every 0.3 ft along the depth of the CPT sounding. Figure 4 shows the CPT data and correlated hydraulic conductivity versus depth. An average hydraulic conductivity value was estimated using the CPT data for the following potential screen interval at these sites: • 3rd Street site: 1) from 18 to 28 ft bgs and 2) from 18 to 40 ft bgs. • Greenwood Park site: 1) from 28 to 40 ft bgs and 2) from 18 to 40 ft bgs. Draft- For Discussion Purposes CWR0645/Hermosa Beach - Draft Memo The correlations used for the estimation of hydraulic conductivity is limited in that it does not reflect an understanding of the fines content of the soils or actual (in-situ) hydraulic properties but relies on the indirect correlations between the CPT data and the hydraulic conductivity of soils. The range of proposed screened intervals (a shorter screened interval and a longer screened interval) were evaluated at both sites to give a sense of potential (estimated) infiltration rates. Estimated Infiltration Rates Using the Hvorslev solution and the estimated average hydraulic conductivities as described above, the average estimated drywell infiltration capacity (ultimate) values are summarized in the table below for both sites along with the pertinent (estimated) hydraulic conductivity and assumed well screen interval information. In the infiltration rate calculations, the head of water in the drywell chamber was assumed at the top of the borehole with an assumed well radius of 2 ft at both sites. Boring ID Screened Interval (ft) Hydraulic Conductivity (K) Steady-State Infiltration Rate (Q) ft/sec cm/sec in/hr ft3/sec gpm acre-ft/yr 3rd Street Site (CPT-1) 18-28 5.3E-03 1.6E-01 229.5 3.1 1,399 2,257 3rd Street Site (CPT-1) 18-40 3.3E-03 1.0E-01 144.5 4.9 2,193 3,538 Greenwood Park Site (CPT-1B) 28-40 2.9E-03 8.9E-02 126.0 2.8 1,241 2,002 Greenwood Park Site (CPT-1B) 18-40 2.1E-03 6.4E-02 90.9 3.1 1,379 2,225 While the estimated drywell infiltration capacity (ultimate) values tabulated above can be used for preliminary (conceptual) design purposes, we recommend performing constant and/or falling head infiltration tests and additional CPTs as part of design level geotechnical investigations to have a better understanding of the in-situ infiltration conditions. Drywell infiltration capacity derived from empirical and analytical tools are based on existing site conditions interpreted from the limited data evaluation of the two CPT soundings. The recommended infiltration capacities assume that appropriate regular maintenance will be carried out to help mitigate long term effects (e.g. sediment accumulation or bio-accumulation) that may reduce the drywell capacity. The designer should apply appropriate factors of safety on top of these ultimate values to account for these conditions as necessary. Draft- For Discussion Purposes CWR0645/Hermosa Beach - Draft Memo CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions relative to the planned drywells at the two sites (Greenwood Park Site and 3rd Street Site) are based on the limited investigation described in this memorandum. • The subsurface soils to the termination depths of the soundings (about 52 to 60 feet) consist of intermittent layers of silty sands, clean sands, and dense gravelly sands. • A hydraulic conductivity range of 3.3E-3 to 5.3 E-3 ft/sec and an ultimate infiltration rate range of 3.1 to 4.9 cfs may be assumed for preliminary (conceptual) design purposes of drywells with the assumed screen intervals and well radii as provided above for the 3rd Street site. • A hydraulic conductivity range of 2.1E-3 to 2.9 E-3 ft/sec and an ultimate infiltration rate range of 2.8 to 3.1 cfs may be assumed for preliminary (conceptual) design purposes of drywells with the assumed screen intervals and well radii as provided above for the Greenwood Park site. • The risk posed by liquefaction is considered low given the density of soils encountered below the historic high groundwater elevation. Nevertheless, the liquefaction risks still need to be addressed/evaluated the design phase of the Project once dry well locations are established. • Information available on the GeoTracker database indicates that the planned drywells has a low likelihood of mobilizing pollutants. • The preliminary conclusions presented in this memorandum should be confirmed by additional geotechnical investigation and testing prior to the start of the design phase of the project. Draft- For Discussion Purposes CWR0645/Hermosa Beach - Draft Memo LIMITATIONS The memorandum and other materials resulting from Geosyntec’s related effort are not intended to be suitable for reuse on any project site other than the currently proposed development area as it may not contain sufficient or appropriate information for such uses. If this memorandum or portions of this memorandum are provided to contractors or included in specifications, it should be understood that they are provided for informational purposes only. Soil deposits may vary in type, strength, and many other important properties between points of exploration due to non-uniformity of the geologic formations or to man-made cut and fill operations. While we cannot evaluate the consistency of the properties of materials in areas not explored, the information presented in this memorandum assumes that the data obtained through the desktop study are reasonably representative of field conditions and conducive to interpolation and extrapolation. The investigation and evaluations were performed using generally accepted engineering approaches and principles available at this time and the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable Geotechnical Engineers practicing in this area. No other representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended in our report. We appreciate the opportunity to work on this project. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or comments or if you need additional information. FIGURES AND ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 Exploration Location Map Figure 2 Geotechnical Investigation Overview and Geological Hazards Map Figure 3 Regional Geologic Map Figure 4 CPT Hydraulic Conductivity vs. Depth Attachment 1 CPT Sounding Logs Draft- For Discussion Purposes CWR0645/Hermosa Beach - Draft Memo REFERENCES California Geological Survey, 1998, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Redondo Beach Quadrangle, Seismic Hazard Zones, Official Map Released: February 1, 1998. California Geological Survey, 2016, Geologic Map of the Redondo Beach Quadrangle, California. California State Water Resources Control Board, 2021, GeoTracker, online interactive mapping database at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. County of Los Angeles, 2009, Review of Geotechnical Reports Addressing Liquefaction, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Geotechnical and Material Engineering Division. County of Los Angeles, 2017, Guidelines for Design, Investigation, and Reporting, Low Impacted Development Stormwater Infiltration, Administration Manual, County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works, Geotechnical and Material Engineering Division. Document GS200.2. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, 2021, Groundwater Wells, online interactive mapping database at: https://dpw.lacounty.gov/general/wells/. Environmental Resolutions, Inc., 2008, Soil Assessment Report Site and Request for Case Closure, Mobil Station 18E3F, 931 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, California, LACDPW Case No. EP-1 009560-009380, June 24, 2008. Environmental Resolutions, Inc., 2009, Site Closure Request Form and Meeting Documentation, Mobil Station 18E3F, 931 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, California, LACDPW Case No. EP-1 009560-009380, July 16, 2009. Massmann, J. (2004) Technical Report, “An Approach for Estimating Infiltration Rates for Stormwater Infiltration Dry Wells”, prepared for Washington State Transportation Commission, Department of Transportation and in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, WA-RD 589.1. Robertson P. K., 2010, Estimating In-situ Soil Permeability from CPT & CPTu, in 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA. TRC Solutions, 2007, Site Quarterly Report, July through September 2007. 76 Station 2947, 247 South Pacific Coast Hwy, Redondo Beach, California, October 15, 2007. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), 1989, Procedure for Performing Field Permeability Testing by the Well Permeameter Method, USBR 7300-89. Draft- For Discussion Purposes CWR0645/Hermosa Beach - Draft Memo FIGURES Figure 1 SITE MAP WITH SOIL INVESTIGATION LOCATIONS HERMOSA BEACH DISTRIBUTED DRYWELLS HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No: CWR0645 SEPTEMBER 2021 "/ "/Redondo BeachHermosa BeachCPT-01 CPT-01-B P:\GIS\Projects\CWR0645-BeachCities_EWMP_2020\40_Geologic Hazards_HDW.mxd Legend "/CPT Location Potential Drywell Location Project Drainage Area Storm Drain Landslide Zone1 Liquefaction Zone2 City Limits Figure 2CWR0645September 2021 ³ 1. City of Los Angeles Hub, 2018 2. California Geologic Survey, 2018 500 0 500250 Feet §¨¦110§¨¦405 Geotechnical Investigation Overview and Geological Hazards Map Hermosa Beach Distributed Drywells Hermosa Beach, CA DRAFT §¨¦105 Geologic Map Hermosa Beach Distributed Infiltration Project Hermosa Beach, CA. Figure CWR0645 September 2021 3 Notes: Project Location Source: Geologic Map of The Long Beach 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California. Version 2.0. Published 2016 Figure 4 CPT HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY VERSUS DEPTH HERMOSA BEACH DISTRIBUTED DRYWELLS HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No: CWR0645 SEPTEMBER 2021 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 depth bgs[ft]Hydraulic Conductivity k [ft/sec] kSBT from CPT data CPT-01 Geomean (18ft-28ft) Geomean+1SD (18ft-28ft) 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 depth bgs[ft]Hydraulic Conductivity k [ft/sec] kSBT from CPT data CPT-01 Geomean (18ft-40ft) Geomean+1SD (18ft-40ft) 3RD STREET SITE –CPT-01 GREENWOOD PARK SITE –CPT-01-B 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00 60.00 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 depth bgs[ft]Hydraulic Conductivity k [ft/sec] kSBT from CPT data CPT-01-B Geomean (28ft-40ft) Geomean+1SD (28ft-40ft) 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 26.00 28.00 30.00 32.00 34.00 36.00 38.00 40.00 42.00 44.00 46.00 48.00 50.00 52.00 54.00 56.00 58.00 60.00 1.E-05 1.E-04 1.E-03 1.E-02 1.E-01 depth bgs[ft]Hydraulic Conductivity k [ft/sec] kSBT from CPT data CPT-01-B Geomean (18ft-40ft) Geomean+1SD (18ft-40ft) Draft- For Discussion Purposes CWR0645/Hermosa Beach - Draft Memo ATTACHMENT 1 CPT Sounding Logs GREGG DRILLING, LLC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES 2726 Walnut Ave. • Signal Hill, California 90755 • (562) 427-6899 • FAX (562) 427-3314 950 Howe Road. • Martinez, California 94553 • (925) 313-5800 • FAX (925) 313-0302 www.greggdrilling.com May 6, 2021 Geosyntec Attn: Scott Struck Subject: CPT Site Investigation 3rd St., Greenwood Park & Anderson Park Redondo & Hermosa Beach, California GREGG Project Number: D1215046 Dear Mr. Struck: The following report presents the results of GREGG Drilling Cone Penetration Test investigation for the above referenced site. The following testing services were performed: 1 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTU) 2 Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPD) 3 Seismic Cone Penetration Tests (SCPTU) 4 UVOST Laser Induced Fluorescence (UVOST) 5 Groundwater Sampling (GWS) 6 Soil Sampling (SS) 7 Vapor Sampling (VS) 8 Pressuremeter Testing (PMT) 9 Vane Shear Testing (VST) 10 Dilatometer Testing (DMT) A list of reference papers providing additional background on the specific tests conducted is provided in the bibliography following the text of the report. If you would like a copy of any of these publications or should you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of this report, please do not hesitate to contact me at 949-903-6873. Sincerely, Gregg Drilling, LLC. CPT Reports Team Gregg Drilling, LLC. GREGG DRILLING, LLC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES 2726 Walnut Ave. • Signal Hill, California 90755 • (562) 427-6899 • FAX (562) 427-3314 950 Howe Road. • Martinez, California 94553 • (925) 313-5800 • FAX (925) 313-0302 www.greggdrilling.com Cone Penetration Test Sounding Summary -Table 1- CPT Sounding Identification Date Termination Depth (feet) Depth of Groundwater Samples (feet) Depth of Soil Samples (feet) Depth of Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (feet) CPT-01 5/4/2021 52.33 - - 52.3 CPT-01-B 5/4/2021 60.04 - - 60.0 CPT-01-C 5/5/2021 60.04 - - 60.0 CPT-01-D 5/13/2021 60.04 - - 60.0 GREGG DRILLING, LLC. GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES 2726 Walnut Ave. • Signal Hill, California 90755 • (562) 427-6899 • FAX (562) 427-3314 950 Howe Road. • Martinez, California 94553 • (925) 313-5800 • FAX (925) 313-0302 www.greggdrilling.com Bibliography Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M., “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice” E & FN Spon. ISBN 0 419 23750, 1997 Roberston, P.K., “Soil Classification using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27, 1990 pp. 151-158. Mayne, P.W., “NHI (2002) Manual on Subsurface Investigations: Geotechnical Site Characterization”, available through www.ce.gatech.edu/~geosys/Faculty/Mayne/papers/index.html, Section 5.3, pp. 107-112. Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella, D. Gillespie and A. Rice, “Seismic CPT to Measure In-Situ Shear Wave Velocity”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 8, 1986 pp. 791-803. Robertson, P.K., Sully, J., Woeller, D.J., Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M., and Gillespie, D.J., "Guidelines for Estimating Consolidation Parameters in Soils from Piezocone Tests", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, August 1992, pp. 539-550. Robertson, P.K., T. Lunne and J.J.M. Powell, “Geo-Environmental Application of Penetration Testing”, Geotechnical Site Characterization, Robertson & Mayne (editors), 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 939 4 pp 35-47. Campanella, R.G. and I. Weemees, “Development and Use of An Electrical Resistivity Cone for Groundwater Contamination Studies”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5, 1990 pp. 557-567. DeGroot, D.J. and A.J. Lutenegger, “Reliability of Soil Gas Sampling and Characterization Techniques”, International Site Characterization Conference - Atlanta, 1998. Woeller, D.J., P.K. Robertson, T.J. Boyd and Dave Thomas, “Detection of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Contaminants Using the UVIF-CPT”, 53rd Canadian Geotechnical Conference Montreal, QC October pp. 733-739, 2000. Zemo, D.A., T.A. Delfino, J.D. Gallinatti, V.A. Baker and L.R. Hilpert, “Field Comparison of Analytical Results from Discrete-Depth Groundwater Samplers” BAT EnviroProbe and QED HydroPunch, Sixth national Outdoor Action Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada Proceedings, 1992, pp 299-312. Copies of ASTM Standards are available through www.astm.org i  812/23/2018  Cone Penetration Testing Procedure (CPT)    Gregg  Drilling  carries  out  all  Cone  Penetration  Tests  (CPT) using an integrated electronic cone system, Figure  CPT.  The  cone  takes  measurements  of  tip  resistance  (qc),  sleeve  resistance  (fs),  and  penetration  pore  water  pressure (u2). Measurements are taken at either 2.5 or  5 cm intervals during penetration to provide a nearly  continuous  profile.  CPT  data  reduction  and  basic  interpretation is performed in real time facilitating on‐  site decision making. The CPT parameters are stored  electronically for further analysis and reference. All CPT  soundings are performed in accordance with revised  ASTM standards (D 5778‐12).  The 5mm thick porous plastic filter element is located  directly behind the cone tip in the u2 location. A new  saturated filter element is used on each sounding to  measure both  penetration  pore  pressures as well as  measurements during a dissipation test (PPDT). Prior to  each test, the filter element is fully saturated with oil  under vacuum pressure to improve accuracy.    When  the  sounding  is  completed,  the  test  hole  is  backfilled according to client specifications. If grouting  is used, the procedure generally consists of pushing a  hollow  tremie  pipe  with  a  “knock  out”  plug  to  the  termination  depth  of  the  CPT  hole.  Grout  is  then  pumped under pressure as the tremie pipe is pulled  from the hole. Disruption or further contamination to  the site is therefore minimized.                Figure CPT ii  812/23/2018  Gregg 15cm2 Standard Cone Specifications  Dimensions  Cone base area 15 cm2  Sleeve surface area 225 cm2  Cone net area ratio 0.85  Specifications  Cone load cell  Full scale range 180 kN (20 tons)  Overload capacity 150%  Full scale tip stress 120 MPa (1,200 tsf)  Repeatability 120 kPa (1.2 tsf)  Sleeve load cell  Full scale range 31 kN (3.5 tons)  Overload capacity 150%  Full scale sleeve stress 1,400 kPa (15 tsf)  Repeatability 1.4 kPa (0.015 tsf)  Pore pressure transducer  Full scale range 7,000 kPa (1,000 psi)  Overload capacity 150%  Repeatability 7 kPa (1 psi)  Note: The repeatability on site will depend somewhat on ground conditions, abrasion,  maintenance and zero load stability.  i    Cone Penetration Test Data & Interpretation    The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data collected are presented in graphical and electronic form in the  report. The plots include interpreted Soil Behavior Type (SBT) based on the charts described by  Robertson (2009 & 2010). Typical plots display SBT based on the non‐normalized charts of Robertson  (2010). For CPT soundings deeper than 30m, we recommend the use of the normalized charts of  Robertson  (2009)  which  can  be  displayed  as  SBTn,  upon  request. The  report  can  also  include  spreadsheet output of computer calculations of basic interpretation in terms of SBT and SBTn and  various geotechnical parameters using current published correlations based on the comprehensive  review by Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997), as well as recent updates by Robertson and Cabal  (Guide to Cone Penetration Testing, 2015). The interpretations are presented only as a guide for  geotechnical use and should be carefully reviewed. Gregg Drilling does not warranty the correctness  or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted by the software and does not  assume any liability for use of the results in any design or review. The user should be fully aware of  the techniques and limitations of any method used in the software. Some interpretation methods  require input of the groundwater level to calculate vertical effective stress. An estimate of the in‐situ  groundwater level has been made based on field observations and/or CPT results, but should be  verified by the user.  A summary of locations and depths is available in Table 1. Note that all penetration depths referenced  in the data are with respect to the existing ground surface. Note that it is not always possible to clearly  identify a soil type based solely on qt, fs, and u2. In these situations, experience, judgment, and an  assessment of the pore pressure dissipation data should be used to infer the correct soil behavior  type.  Figure SBT (After Robertson, 2010) – Note: Colors may vary slightly compared to plots i    Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Interpretation    Gregg  uses  a  commercial  CPT  interpretation  and  plotting  software  (CPeT‐IT  https://geologismiki.gr/products/cpet‐it/).  The  software  takes the  CPT  data  and  performs  basic  interpretation in terms of soil behavior type (SBT) and various geotechnical parameters using current  published empirical correlations based on the comprehensive review by Lunne, Robertson and Powell  (1997) and updated by Robertson and Cabal (2015). The interpretation is presented in tabular format. The  interpretations are presented only as a guide for geotechnical use and should be carefully reviewed. Gregg  does not warranty the correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted  by the software and does not assume any liability for any use of the results in any design or review. The  user should be fully aware of the techniques and limitations of any method used in the software.    The following provides a summary of the methods used for the interpretation. Many of the empirical  correlations to estimate geotechnical parameters have constants that have a range of values depending  on soil type, geologic origin and other factors. The software uses ‘default’ values that have been selected  to provide, in general, conservatively low estimates of the various geotechnical parameter.                                                  ii      References    ASTM D5778‐12, 2012, Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone  Penetration Testing of Soils.  ASTM West Conshohocken, USA    Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M., 1997.  Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical  Practice.      Robertson, P.K., 1990.  Soil Classification using the Cone Penetration Test.  Canadian Geotechnical  Journal, Volume 27: 151‐158    Robertson, P.K., 2009.  Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests – a unified approach.  Canadian  Geotechnical Journal, Volume 46: 1337‐1355    Robertson, P.K., 2010, “Soil Behavior type from the CPT: an update”, 2nd International Symposium on  Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA, Vol.2. pp 575‐583    Robertson, P.K. and Cabal, K.L., “Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering”, 6th  Edition, 2015, 145 p. Free online, http://www.greggdrilling.com/technical‐guides.    Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella, D. Gillespie and A. Rice, "Seismic CPT to Measure In‐situ Shear  Wave Velocity", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 8, pp. 791‐803, 1986.    Robertson, P.K., Sully, J., Woeller, D.J., Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M., and Gillespie, D.J., "Guidelines for  Estimating Consolidation Parameters in Soils from Piezocone Tests", Canadian Geotechnical Journal,  Vol. 29, No. 4, August 1992, pp. 539‐550.                  SEISMIC DATA  Seismic Cone Penetration Testing (SCPT)    Seismic  Cone  Penetration  Testing  (SCPT)  can  be  conducted  at  various  intervals  during  the  Cone  Penetration Test. Shear wave velocity (Vs) can then be calculated over a specified interval with depth. A  small interval for seismic testing, such as 1‐1.5m (3‐5ft) allows for a detailed look at the shear wave profile  with depth. Conversely, a larger interval such as 3‐6m (10‐20ft) allows for a more average shear wave  velocity to be calculated. Gregg’s cones have a horizontally active geophone located 0.2m (0.66ft) behind  the tip.    To conduct the seismic shear wave test, the penetration of the cone is stopped and the rods are decoupled  from the rig. An automatic hammer is triggered to send a shear wave into the soil. The distance from the  source to the cone is calculated knowing the total depth of the cone and the horizontal offset distance  between the source and the cone. To calculate an interval velocity, a minimum of two tests must be  performed at two different  depths.    The    arrival times  between the two wave traces  are compared to obtain the  difference  in  time  (∆t).  The  difference  in  depth  is  calculated  (∆d)  and  velocity  can be determined using the  simple equation: v = ∆d/∆t    Multiple wave traces can be  recorded at the same depth  to  improve  quality  of  the  data.    A  complete  reference  on  seismic  cone  penetration  tests  is  presented  by  Robertson  et  al.  1986  and  Lunne et al. 1997.  (S) t 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 A summary the shear wave  velocities, arrival times and  wave traces are provided  with the report.      Figure SCPT  i              PORE PRESSURE  DISSIPATION  Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT    Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT’s) conducted at various intervals  can  be  used  to  measure  equilibrium water pressure (at the time of the CPT). If conditions are hydrostatic, the equilibrium water  pressure can be used to determine the approximate depth of the ground water table. A PPDT is conducted  when penetration is halted at specific intervals determined by the field representative. The variation of  the penetration pore pressure (u) with time is measured behind the tip of the cone and recorded.  Pore pressure dissipation data can be  interpreted to provide estimates of:   Equilibrium piezometric pressure   Phreatic Surface   In‐situ horizontal coefficient of  consolidation (ch)   In‐situ horizontal coefficient of  permeability (kh)    In order to correctly interpret the equilibrium  piezometric  pressure  and/or  the  phreatic  surface, the pore pressure must be  monitored until it reaches equilibrium, Figure  PPDT. This time is commonly referred to as  t100, the point at which 100% of the excess  pore pressure has dissipated.    A  complete  reference  on  pore  pressure  dissipation tests is presented by Robertson et  al. 1992 and Lunne et al. 1997.    A summary of the pore pressure dissipation  tests is summarized in Table 1.  Figure PPDT  i  CLIENT: GEOSYNTECGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 52.33 ft, Date: 5/4/20213RD ST., REDONDO/HERMOSA BEACH, CACPT: CPT-01SITE:FIELD REP: KARTHIKSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)8006004002000Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)100806040200Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandSandSandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSandSandSandCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 5/6/2021, 1:31:14 PM1Project file: C:\CPT-2021\5046SH\REPORT\215046SH.cpt CLIENT: GEOSYNTECGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 52.33 ft, Date: 5/4/20213RD ST., REDONDO/HERMOSA BEACH, CACPT: CPT-01SITE:FIELD REP: KARTHIKSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)8006004002000Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)100806040200Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandSandSandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSandSandSandCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 5/6/2021, 1:31:14 PM2Project file: C:\CPT-2021\5046SH\REPORT\215046SH.cpt CLIENT: GEOSYNTECGREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 52.33 ft, Date: 5/4/20213RD ST., REDONDO/HERMOSA BEACH, CACPT: CPT-01SITE:FIELD REP: KARTHIKSBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)8006004002000Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)14121086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Friction ratioShear Wave velocityHAND AUGERVs (ft/s)2000150010005000Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Custom DataShear Wave velocitySoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420Soil Behaviour TypeSand & silty sandSandSandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSand & silty sandSandSandSandCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 5/6/2021, 1:31:14 PM3Project file: C:\CPT-2021\5046SH\REPORT\215046SH.cpt CLIENT: GEOSYNTEC GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 60.04 ft, Date: 5/4/2021GREENWOOD PARK, REDONDO/HERMOSA BEACH, CA CPT: CPT-01-B SITE: FIELD REP: KARTHIK Elevation: Cone ID: GDC-20 Lat/Lon: 33.863148/-118.392153 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 8006004002000Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Friction ratio SPT N60 HAND AUGER N60 (blows/ft) 100806040200Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 SPT N60 Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Soil Behaviour Type Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 9/24/2021, 3:36:03 PM 1 Project file: C:\Users\LauraGregg\OneDrive - Gregg Drilling\Documents - Greggdrilling Reports's files\SH-2021\5046SH\215046sh RELEASE\REPORT\215046SH.cpt CLIENT: GEOSYNTEC GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 60.04 ft, Date: 5/4/2021GREENWOOD PARK, REDONDO/HERMOSA BEACH, CA CPT: CPT-01-B SITE: FIELD REP: KARTHIK Elevation: Cone ID: GDC-20 Lat/Lon: 33.863148/-118.392153 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLY Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 8006004002000Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Friction ratio Pore pressure u HAND AUGER Pressure (psi) 100806040200Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Pore pressure u Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Soil Behaviour Type Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 9/24/2021, 3:36:03 PM 2 Project file: C:\Users\LauraGregg\OneDrive - Gregg Drilling\Documents - Greggdrilling Reports's files\SH-2021\5046SH\215046sh RELEASE\REPORT\215046SH.cpt CLIENT: GEOSYNTEC GREGG DRILLING, LLC WWW.GREGGDRILLING.COM Total depth: 60.04 ft, Date: 5/4/2021GREENWOOD PARK, REDONDO/HERMOSA BEACH, CA CPT: CPT-01-B SITE: FIELD REP: KARTHIK Elevation: Cone ID: GDC-20 Lat/Lon: 33.863148/-118.392153 SBTn legend 1. Sensitive fine grained 2. Organic material 3. Clay to silty clay 4. Clayey silt to silty clay 5. Silty sand to sandy silt 6. Clean sand to silty sand 7. Gravely sand to sand 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand 9. Very stiff fine grained Cone resistance qt HAND AUGER Tip resistance (tsf) 8006004002000Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Cone resistance qt Sleeve friction HAND AUGER Friction (tsf) 14121086420Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Sleeve friction Friction ratio HAND AUGER Rf (%) 1086420Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Friction ratio Shear Wave velocity HAND AUGER Vs (ft/s) 2,0001,5001,0005000Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Custom Data Shear Wave velocity Soil Behaviour Type HAND AUGER SBT (Robertson, 2010) 181614121086420Depth (ft)60 58 56 54 52 50 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Soil Behaviour Type Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand Sand Sand & silty sand Sand & silty sand CPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 9/24/2021, 3:36:44 PM 1 Project file: C:\Users\LauraGregg\OneDrive - Gregg Drilling\Documents - Greggdrilling Reports's files\SH-2021\5046SH\215046sh RELEASE\REPORT\215046SH.cpt 0102030405060.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0Depth (Feet)Time (ms)Waveforms for Sounding CPT-01 010203040506070.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0Depth (Feet)Time (ms)Waveforms for Sounding CPT-01-B Sounding:Depth (ft):Site:Engineer:GREGG DRILLING & TESTINGPore Pressure Dissipation TestCPT-0152.333RD STKARTHIK-4-3-2-10120 200 400 600 800 1000 1200Pore Pressure (psi)Time (seconds) Sounding:Depth (ft):Site:Engineer:GREGG DRILLING & TESTINGPore Pressure Dissipation TestCPT-01-B60.04GREENWOOD KARTHIK00.511.522.533.544.550 200 400 600 800 1000 1200Pore Pressure (psi)Time (seconds) City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 21-0653 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 APPEAL OF REMOVAL OF ON-STREET DISABLED PARKING SPACE AT 823 MONTEREY BOULEVARD (Director of Public Works Joe SanClemente) Recommended Action: Staff recommends City Council uphold the decision of the Public Works Director to remove the disabled parking space located at 823 Monterey Boulevard on the basis that the original applicant is deceased,and the continued designation of the space would create an undue hardship for the new property owner during construction of the new residential development. Executive Summary: On May 28,2021,the Public Works Department received a request from the new homeowner to remove the on-street disabled parking space at 823 Monterey Boulevard.Based on criteria outlined in the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code,the Public Works Director approved removal of the on-street disabled parking space.Staff has received an appeal of the removal from a nearby disabled resident currently using the parking space and presents the appeal to City Council for consideration. Background: On May 28,2021,the Public Works Department received a request to remove an existing on-street disabled parking space (Attachment 1)from the new homeowner of 823 Monterey Boulevard.The space was originally approved by the City Council on September 13,2016 after receiving an application from the former homeowner.In accordance with Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 10.32.360,on-street disabled parking spaces may be removed at any time by the Director of Public Works upon a finding the applicant no longer qualifies for use of the space. While formal public noticing is not required for the removal of the space,staff elected to send a Public Notice (Attachment 2)on July 8,2021 to residents on Monterey Avenue on the block located between 8th Street and 10th Street.Upon receiving no comments and confirming that the original applicant no longer owns,or resides at,the property and therefore no longer qualifies for use of the disabled space,the Director of Public Works approved the removal of the disabled parking space on July 29,2021.Given the approval,the new homeowner’s contractor intended to remove the space City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0653 July 29,2021.Given the approval,the new homeowner’s contractor intended to remove the space and convert it to a standard parking space as part of permit approval of a new single-family residential development. On September 21,2021,Public Works received an email request from the homeowner at 745 Monterey Boulevard to not remove the on-street disabled parking space located at 823 Monterey Boulevard,stating that the resident is disabled and currently uses the disabled parking space.A formal appeal (Attachment 4)was received by the City Clerk’s Office on October 6,2021,with supporting documents as outlined in Hermosa Beach Municipal Code 10.32.360 Section D. The resident appealing the removal of the existing disabled space resides at 745 Monterey Boulevard, approximately 190 feet from the space on the block south of 8th Street (Attachment 3). Past Council Actions Meeting Date Description September 13, 2016 City Council approved application for installation of on-street disabled parking space located at 823 Monterey Boulevard Analysis: A decision by the Public Works Director to remove the on-street disabled parking space may be appealed to the City Council pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code 10.32.360 Section E.The Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is silent on the appeal process for the removal of the on-street disabled parking spaces.The City Attorneys’Office has advised staff that the appeal to remove the existing disabled parking space and application for a new disabled space are two separate processes,which should be completed by a resident if there is an interest to install a new disabled parking space at a different location.Staff notified the resident of this requirement and offered assistance with the appeal and application process. The Municipal Code also does not include provisions for either temporary or permanent relocation of disabled parking spaces; therefore, the City does not have the authority to relocate the space. Municipal Code Section 10.32.360 states that on-street disabled parking spaces may be removed at any time by the Director of Public Works upon a finding that the criteria below are not met,if the parking space is not being used for the purpose intended,or the applicant no longer qualifies for the space: 1.The applicant is a City resident who has been issued either a special identification license plate issued pursuant to Vehicle Code Section 5007 or a distinguishing placard issued pursuant to Vehicle Code Sections 22511.55 or 225511.59; 2.The applicant has no off-street parking available with reasonable accessibility; and 3.Designation of the space would not create an undue hardship to other residents on the City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0653 3.Designation of the space would not create an undue hardship to other residents on the block. The resident appealing the removal of the disabled parking space resides at 745 Monterey Boulevard and provided documentation showing that he qualifies for the on-street disabled parking space by submitting proof of a valid and current Department of Motor Vehicle disabled person placard. Therefore, the resident meets criterion number one. The resident located at 745 Monterey Boulevard has no vehicular access from either Monterey Boulevard,which fronts the property,or garage access on Bayview Drive.The garage to the property is located at the rear of the property on Bayview Drive and is being used by rental property at the rear of 745 Monterey Boulevard;garage access would also require that the resident use stairs.Therefore, the resident meets criterion number two because there is no off-street parking available with reasonable accessibility. In order to meet conditions of criterion number three for an on-street disabled parking space, designation of the space should not create an undue hardship to other residents on the block. However,the new property owner of 823 Monterey Boulevard requesting the on-street disabled space be removed and converted back to a standard parking space states that the disabled space creates an undue hardship for the construction of the new single-family residence development. Staff conducted a field observation and determined that there is adequate room in front of 745 Monterey Boulevard to convert an existing parking space to a new disabled parking space.The resident has been notified of the process and guidelines to apply for disabled parking space. However,the resident has shown no interest in applying for a new space,which would require an application and fee be submitted by the resident for City Council consideration and approval in accordance with Hermosa Beach Municipal Code 10.32.360.Guidelines to apply for disabled parking space are provided as (Attachment 5).The Disabled Parking Space installation fee is $2,456; however,the fee may be waived for those disabled persons with an income threshold under $75,000 annually by filing an affidavit with the City's Public Works Director for a waiver of this fee. Staff recommends that City Council uphold the decision of the Public Works Director to remove the disabled parking space on the basis that the original applicant is deceased,no longer qualifies for the space,and the designation of the space would create an undue hardship for the new property owner during construction of the new residential development. General Plan Consistency: This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below: Mobility Element Goal 4.A parking system that meets the parking needs and demands of residents,visitors, City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Staff Report REPORT 21-0653 Goal 4.A parking system that meets the parking needs and demands of residents,visitors, and employees in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Policies: ·4.2 Encourage coastal access.Ensure parking facilities and costs of such facilities are not a barrier to beach access by the public. ·4.4 Preferential parking program.Periodically study and evaluate the current inventory of public parking supply and update the preferential parking program. Fiscal Impact: If removed,the homeowner of the new single-family residence is responsible for the cost of removal of the space and conversion to a standard parking space. Attachments: 1. Request to Remove On-Street Disabled Space Letter 2. Public Notice 3. Location Map 4. Appeal Letter 5. Guidelines for Requesting On-Street Disabled Parking Space 6. Supplemental Letter Respectfully Submitted by: Michelle Licata, Assistant Engineer Concur: Lucho Rodriguez, P.E., Deputy City Engineer Concur: Joe SanClemente, P.E., Director of Public Works Legal Review: John Natalizio, Associate Attorney Legal Review: Mike Jenkins, City Attorney Noted for Fiscal Impact: Viki Copeland, Director of Finance Approved: Suja Lowenthal, City Manager City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ From: Chris Lombardi [mailto:chris@lombardicustomhomes.com] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 8:55 AM To: Bob Rollins; Heather Baboolal; John Henrikson Subject: 823 Monterey Blvd. ADA Parking Hi Bob, I am preparing to submit the demo permit package for the upcoming project at 823 Monterey Blvd. My clients Heather and Paul Baboolal have owned the property for two years, have received their Coastal Development Permit, and are well on their way through plan check. We are building a new SFR and ADU on the property. The previous owner had an ADA parking spot, including striping and signage, installed in front of the property. Paul and Heather, as well as Lombardi Construction, would like to return this spot to the typical public parking standard on the street by removing the ADA designation. Please let me know what to expect and how to initiate the process. Thank you, Chris From: Heather Baboolal <hbaboolal@me.com> Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 9:06 AM To: Michelle Licata <mlicata@hermosabeach.gov> Cc: Paul Baboolal <paul.baboolal@nm.com>; Joseph SanClemente <jsanclemente@hermosabeach.gov> Subject: Re: 823 Monterey Blvd. - ADA Parking Removal Hi Michelle, In their report and recommendation to the City Council I hope that Public Works (or the applicable department) will consider the following options: 1) Recommending the ADA designation be moved to a parking space closer to the resident’s home who has requested to use the space; AND /OR 2) Making an exception to allow the ADA space to be used for staging during construction; 3) Amending the current code to put a time limit on the appeal process. As stated in previous email, it makes it very difficult for a contractor to plan ahead when they unexpectedly get put on hold. I would hate future residents and contractors to have to go through this same needless delay despite putting forth best efforts to plan ahead. With respect to the proposals above, the following information should be considered: 1) The ADA space is rarely used during daytime working hours. I walk by there daily and it is almost always open during the daytime. 2) There is a white car that most often uses this space. The gentleman who drives this car walks walks about a block to a house located at 745 Monterey Blvd. This house has four parking spaces on Monterey directly in front of this residence. 3) If the construction trucks are not allowed to park directly in front of 823 Monterey, it will cause undue hardship on other residents. I appreciate your assistance on this matter and ask you to forward the email to all applicable decision makers. Do you anticipate that this item will be put on the agenda for the October 12th City Council agenda? Regards, Heather Baboolal City of Hermosa Beach PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IMPORTANT NOTICE REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF A DISABLED PARKING SPACE IN FRONT OF 823 MONTEREY BLVD. Public Works Department has received request to remove a disabled parking space in front of 823 Monterey Blvd. The applicant who applied for ADA space no longer resides at 823 Monterey Blvd. The ADA space is planned to return to standard on street parking space. ANY AND ALL PERSONS who has comments or concerns should notify Public Works Department no later than July 19, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please email your comments to Michelle Licata mlicata@hermosabeach.gov , Public Works Department or call 310-318-0228. Michelle Licata Assistant Engineer City of Hermosa Beach Public Works 0.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.0 Notes © City of Hermosa Beach Legend The map generated is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map do not have survey grade accuracy but represent close approximation. 0.020 1:1,575 City of Hermosa Beach City Boundary Parcels Streets Received via email Wed 10/6/2021 3:24 PM Dear HB City Council, City Clerk and HB Public Works Dept. et.al.: The following is a synopsis of pertinent points to consider in keeping the handicapped parking space at 823 Monterey Blvd., Hermosa Beach: I have a legitimate handicapped parking designation. There is no other handicapped designated space on Monterey Blvd. I live at 745 Monterey Blvd. This address is less than 100 steps to the already in place handicapped spot at 823 Monterey Blvd. If removed, the available space in front of 823 is not large enough to replace it with 2 ‘regular’ parking spots. Relocating a handicapped spot elsewhere would likely cause the reduction of 2 ‘regular’ parking spots. There are 4 ‘regular’ spots in front of my address and the neighbors on either side - 737, 747 Monterey, and no parking across the street on Monterey. There is no feasible alternative to replace this needed handicapped spot from 823 Monterey to another nearby location. It would likely require a reduction in the number of already too few ‘regular’ parking spots, and, cost the City the expense of doing so. By keeping the handicapped space at 823, it would save the City the cost of removal and possible replacement if there were another handicapped spot designated. 823 has access to that property from Bayview Dr. Parking on Bayview behind my house is not available - there is a garage there but it is used by a renter, and additionally, going to my house from Bayview would require me to climb 4 flights of stairs which I am not able to do. Prior to the planned removal of the handicapped spot at 823, after knowing that the former owner of 823 had died, I twice visited the HB Public Works Dept. and spoke with a gentleman named Reid, no longer employed by the City, and was told that if the City were to consider removing the 823 spot, I, and nearby residents, would be informed. As mentioned, my house is 100 steps from 823 and I did not receive any notice pertaining to this issue but apparently there was an advisement, I was told, sent out sometime in early July 2021 which was not sent/received by me. After receiving the Construction Notice about ‘CIP 192 Annual Restriping Improvements 9/20 - 10/19’, I called and visited the Public Works Dept. offices and spoke with Michelle Licata, Joe Santaclemente and Andrew Nguyen who can, if necessary, attest to my concern and request. If the City would like, the 823 spot can be ‘registered’ in my name,and, as with other handicapped parking access could also be available for other handicapped drivers. The prior holder of the 823 spot, now deceased (‘Tom’), would park there and also on the property in front of 823 beside his front door. Again, from my perspective as a neophyte in such matters, and being in need of accessible handicapped parking, it makes sense logistically, practically and financially to keep the City’s publicly accessible street parking as it is now with regard to the handicapped designation in front of 823 Monterey Blvd. Respectfully submitted, Peter Carter 745 Monterey Blvd HB 90254 - 4552 310 999 9429 By the way, I have lived in HB for 50 years, at 2 different addresses both on Monterey Blvd. (At 745 for the last 36 years) Thank you for your kind consideration. Sent from my iPad City of Hermosa GUIDELINES FOR REQUESTING A DISABLED PARKING SPACE The City of Hermosa Beach recognizes that there are certain locations within the City that do not provide sufficient and/or accessible off-street parking. In those cases, a limited number of on-street parking spaces may be designated by the City Council for the benefit of residents with an identifiable need for disabled parking without significantly affecting the available curb parking in an area. In these cases, the following guidelines should be followed completely. The Disabled Parking Space Installation fee is $2,456, due prior to sign installation. This fee may be waived for those disabled persons with an income threshold under $75,000 annually by filing an affidavit with the City's Public Works Director for a waiver of this fee. For the A "disabled" person is a person who is "disabled" within the meaning of Section 10.32.360.D1 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. RESIDENT REQUEST Meets Criteria --- The applicant must submit a written request for disabled street parking. The letter should: 1.Identify the preferred parking location. 2.Explain the conditions that make all available off-street parking inaccessible. 3.Describe why street parking is required. 4.Provide proof permanent of disability -can be a copy of the applicant's state-issued placard with registration OR a copy of the registration for your California Vehicle Disabled License Plate. PROOF OF RESIDENCY Meets Criteria --- At least one member of the resident's household must have a valid disabled parking permit and live in the dwelling. A copy of the permit and proof of residency will be kept on file. OFF-STREET PARKING Meets Criteria --- Resident has no other off-street parking available with reasonable accessibility other than the requested on­ street space. The applicant is expected to use any and all available off-street spaces before utilizing on-street parking. Disabled street parking will only be considered in locations were curb parking exists and when the designation of the space as a disabled parking space will not create an undue hardship to other residents of the block. Proof that the applicant does not have a garage, carport, driveway or any other off-street area available is required. TIMING, REVOCATION AND REMOVAL Requester's Initials __ On-street disabled parking spaces may be removed at any time by the Director of Public Works upon finding that the permit holder fails to meet one or more of the guidelines in Ordinance 13-1340 or determines that the parking space is not being used for the purpose intended. The decision of the Public Works Director to remove a disabled on-street space may be appealed to the City Council. REQUESTOR: ___________________________ _ REQUESTED LOCATION: _______________________ _ COMMENTS:. _____________________________ _ FOR CITY USE ONLY: APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL _____ _ DATE. ______ INSTALLATION DATE __________ October 20, 2021 Dear Michelle, While we wait for Council to review the ADA parking space removal and the pending appeal, we’ve considered other solutions and would like to introduce the following proposal. We’re grateful for your consideration. Please include this proposal in the staff report. We believe the resident appealing the removal lives at 745 Monterey Blvd. There are four adjacent parking spots on the curb in front of 745, between 8th Street and the nearest curb cut to the south. We would like to work in conjunction with the appellant to submit an application for ADA designation of the parking space directly in front of 745 Monterey Blvd. Thus the removal of the ADA space at 823 will be supplemented by the addition of an ADA space at 745. Because the removal of the 823 space was already approved, and the code is not clear with respect to the appeal process, we kindly request that the city waive the ADA application fee in this case. We believe this is an effective solution that meets the needs of all parties. We appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, The Baboolal Project Team City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report 21-0668 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council Regular Meeting of November 9, 2021 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Attached is the current list of tentative future agenda items for Council’s information. Attachments: Tentative Future Agenda Items City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 11/5/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ November 3, 2021 Honorable Mayor and Members Regular Meeting of of the Hermosa Beach City Council November 9, 2021 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS NOVEMBER 23, 2021 @ 5:00 PM INITIAL DATE CLOSED SESSION NOVEMBER 23, 2021 @ 6:00 PM PRESENTATIONS COVID-19 HEALTH UPDATE FROM BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT RECOGNIZING OFFICERS KURT MATEKO AND GEROLD RODRIGUEZ FOR RECEIVING THE MADD AWARD CITY MANAGER REPORTS Police Chief Update Update from Jim Fasola – City Delegate to the Los Angeles County West Vector & Vector-Borne Disease Control District Board of Trustees CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Updates from City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittees and Standing Committee Delegates/Alternates CONSENT CALENDAR City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing Check Registers Finance Director Ongoing Revenue Report, Expenditure Report and CIP Report by Project Finance Director Ongoing City Treasurer’s Report and Cash Balance Report City Treasurer Ongoing Cancellation of Certain Checks City Treasurer Ongoing Capital Improvement Program Status Report Public Works Director Ongoing Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works Commission meeting of September 15, 2021 Public Works Director Ongoing Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of November 16, 2021 Community Development Director Ongoing Planning Commission Tentative Future Agenda Items Community Development Director Ongoing 421 Monterey Blvd - FINAL MAP NO. 82373 (C.U.P. CON NO. 19-3, PDP NO. 19-6) Community Development Director Staff Request Oct. 28, 2021 South Bay Workforce Investment Board Quarterly Summary Chris Cagle Quarterly Assembly Bill 361 Compliance City Clerk Ongoing Second Reading - An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, amending Chapter 5.74 (Massage Therapy Business) of Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations), and Section 5.04.200 (Schedule of Business Taxes) of Chapter 5.04 (Business Licenses Generally) of Title 5 (Business Licenses and Regulations) of the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and adopting by reference Chapter 7.54 (Massage) of Title 7 (Business Licenses), Division 2 (Specific Businesses) and Chapter 11.36 (Massage Establishments) of Title 11 (Health and Safety), Division 1 (Health Code) of the County of Los Angeles Municipal Code, and finding the same exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. City Clerk Council Direction Nov. 9, 2021 Request for approval of sponsorship donation to the Beach Cities Health District’s 23rd annual holiday gift bag project City Manager Annual MUNICIPAL MATTERS Organic Procurement Policy Environmental Programs Manager Staff Request Sept. 27, 2021 Participation in the Opioid Settlement City Attorney Staff Request Nov. 4, 2021 List of regular and ongoing City Board and Commission appointive terms that will expire during the 2022 calendar year City Clerk Annual FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Tentative Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing 2 DECEMBER 14, 2021 @ 5:00 PM INITIAL DATE CLOSED SESSION DECEMBER 14, 2021 @ 6:00 PM PRESENTATIONS COVID-19 HEALTH UPDATE FROM BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT CITY MANAGER REPORTS Police Chief Update CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Updates from City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittees and Standing Committee Delegates/Alternates CONSENT CALENDAR City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing Check Registers Finance Director Ongoing Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of November 2, 2021 Community Resources Manager Ongoing Los Angeles Fire Services and McCormick Ambulance Monthly Report for October 2021 Emergency Management Coordinator Ongoing Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Economic Development Committee meeting of December 6, 2021 Community Development Director Ongoing Assembly Bill 361 Compliance City Clerk Ongoing PUBLIC HEARINGS – 6:30 PM Approval of 2022 Impact Level III Special Events Community Resources Manager Staff Request Oct. 18, 2021 Adoption of the Hermosa Beach 2021-2029 Housing Element Community Development Director Staff Request Oct. 13, 2021 Urgency Ordinance to establish objective standards in R-1 zone for lot splits and housing projects that will be permitted pursuant to Senate Bill 9 effective January 1, 2022 Community Development Director Staff Request Oct. 28, 2021 MUNICIPAL MATTERS Extension of Outdoor Dining and Downtown Lane Reconfigurations Program and Plan for Permanent Program Implementation Environmental Programs Manager Council Direction Oct. 26, 2021 CIP 689 - Clark Building Renovations Final Plans Public Works Director Staff Request Oct. 28, 2021 City Council Committee Reorganization – December 2021 City Clerk Annual City Council Meeting Schedule for 2022 City Manager Annual FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – CITY COUNCIL Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing TUESDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2021 @ 6:00 PM NO MEETING (DARK) 3 JANUARY 11, 2022 @ 5:00 PM INITIAL DATE CLOSED SESSION JANUARY 11, 2022 @ 6:00 PM PRESENTATIONS COVID-19 HEALTH UPDATE FROM BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PRESENTS REVIEW OF 2021 PROGRAMS AND VISION FOR 2022 CITY MANAGER REPORTS Police Chief Update CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Updates from City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittees and Standing Committee Delegates/Alternates CONSENT CALENDAR City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing Check Registers Finance Director Ongoing Revenue Report, Expenditure Report and CIP Report by Project for Nov. 2021 Finance Director Ongoing City Treasurer’s Report and Cash Balance Report for Nov. 2021 City Treasurer Ongoing Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission meeting of December 7, 2021 Community Resources Manager Ongoing Los Angeles Fire Services and McCormick Ambulance Monthly Report for November 2021 Emergency Management Coordinator Ongoing Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 13, 2021 Community Development Director Ongoing Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Economic Development Committee meeting of January 3, 2021 Community Development Director Ongoing Assembly Bill 361 Compliance City Clerk Ongoing MUNICIPAL MATTERS Approve Professional Services Agreement for Public Information Officer City Manager Staff Request Sept. 2, 2021 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS – CITY COUNCIL Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing 4 JANUARY 25, 2022 @ 5:00 PM INITIAL DATE CLOSED SESSION JANUARY 25, 2022 @ 6:00 PM PRESENTATIONS COVID-19 HEALTH UPDATE FROM BEACH CITIES HEALTH DISTRICT CITY MANAGER REPORTS Police Chief Update CITY COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS Updates from City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittees and Standing Committee Delegates/Alternates CONSENT CALENDAR City Council Minutes City Clerk Ongoing Check Registers Finance Director Ongoing Revenue Report, Expenditure Report and CIP Report by Project Finance Director Ongoing City Treasurer’s Report and Cash Balance Report City Treasurer Ongoing Cancellation of Certain Checks City Treasurer Ongoing Capital Improvement Program Status Report Public Works Director Ongoing Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works Commission meeting of November 17, 2021 Public Works Director Ongoing Recommendation to receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January ??, 2022 Community Development Director Ongoing Planning Commission Tentative Future Agenda Items Community Development Director Ongoing Assembly Bill 361 Compliance City Clerk Ongoing FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Tentative Future Agenda Items City Manager Ongoing WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2021 @ 6:00 PM PARKING STUDY SESSION 5 PENDING STRATEGIC PLAN ITEMS STATUS / TENTATIVE MEETING DATE Update Personnel Policies Human Resources Manager Beach Policy/Regulations (Continued from meeting of October 27, 2016) Community Resources Manager On hold by Council Alternative Fuel Transportation Report, Nov. 2016 Environmental Analyst Community Choice Aggregation Direction, Dec. 2016 Environmental Programs Manager PENDING NEW ITEMS STATUS / TENTATIVE MEETING DATE Consideration of re-establishing, on an as needed basis, both funding and discretion for the director of Public Works to contract services to pump major beach storm outfalls drains prior to anticipated major storm events (supported by Duclos, Armato and Petty) Initiated by: Other Matters Feb. 14, 2017 Public Works Director Staff to provide an update on storm drain maintenance and provide details on hydrodynamic separators (CIP 435) at the following CIP study session Approval of the Municipal Lease Policy Initiated by: Staff Request Jun. 12, 2018 Community Resources Manager Document Retention Policy Initiated by: Staff Request Nov. 28, 2018 City Clerk Pending Deputy City Clerk Appointment Consent for use of “Lot B” for construction staging area for Pier/Strand project Initiated by: Staff Request Dec. 17, 2018 Community Development Director On hold per developer Landscape and Street Lighting District Assessment Adjustment (mail-in election authorization) Initiated by: Council Direction Jul. 9, 2019 Public Works Director Revenue Strategy Study Session (Tentative: Feb. 17, 2022) Final Parcel Map No. 82295 for a two-unit residential condominium project at 1602 Loma Drive. Initiated by: Staff Request Oct. 10, 2019 Community Development Director Pending Coastal Development Permit Public Records Request Guidelines Initiated by: Staff Request Oct. 14, 2019 City Clerk/Assistant to the City Manager Pending Deputy City Clerk Appointment Emergency Services Municipal Code Chapter 2.56 Update Emergency Management Coordinator Waiting for State to review proposed language changes Return to Council to discuss a full ban on tobacco sales and to include all available data related to other communities who have adopted complete bans Initiated by: Staff Request Jan. 28, 2020 Community Development Director Consideration of licensing agreement/fees for use of City logo Initiated by: Council Direction Jun. 9, 2020 City Attorney Discussion on Potential Establishment of a City Council Subcommittee Regarding City Finances (supported by Detoy, Armato, Fangary) Initiated by: Other Matters Jun. 9, 2020 Finance Director/Assistant to the City Manager Follow-up on Mayor’s Pledge Initiated by: Council Direction August 25, 2020 City Manager’s Office/Police Chief Updating Resolution 15-6988, Rules for the Conduct of City Council Meetings. Initiated by: Staff Request December 12, 2020 City Attorney/City Clerk Resolution of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach Approving the Grant of Funds from the State Coastal Conservancy for Hermosa Beach Parking Lot Greening Project Initiated by: Staff Request April 12, 2021 Environmental Programs Manager Ordinance to regulate Outdoor Lighting Initiated by: Staff Request June 3, 2021 Community Development Director 6 PENDING NEW ITEMS – CONTINUED STATUS / TENTATIVE MEETING DATE Approval of the Parks, Recreation and Community Resources Advisory Commission’s Recommended Language Changes to HBMC Sections 12.20.060, 12.20.080 and 12.20.330 to Include a 50 -Foot Distance Requirement from the Strand Wall for any Recreational Activity; Prohibition of the Blocking of Emergency Lanes; a 10-Foot Distance Requirement from the Strand Wall for Tents; and a Comprehensive Review of the Sections for Relevancy Initiated by: Staff Request July 7, 2021 Community Resources Manager An Ordinance of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, adding Chapter 12.42 to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to require property owners to repair the sidewalk area abutting their real property Initiated by: Staff Request June 12, 2021 City Attorney Disclosure of cost to provide another designated period for granting two years additional service credit for members of the public employees’ retirement system (CalPers) Initiated by: Staff Request July 26, 2021 Finance Director Pending more information from PERS Resolution of intention to provide another designated period for two years additional service credit pursuant to government code section 20903 for eligible local miscellaneous and local safety members Initiated by: Staff Request July 26, 2021 Finance Director Pending more information from PERS 1) Review Hermosa Beach’s residential and employee parking permit program; and 2) Review Hermosa Beach’s street metered and parking garage program. (Supported by Jackson, Massey, Armato, Campbell) Initiated by: Council Direction September 28, 2021 Finance Director/Police Chief Parking Study Session (Tentative: Jan. 26, 2022) Update on single use plastics ordinance and resources needed to meet compliance (Supported by Massey, Campbell, Armato) Initiated by: Council Direction October 26, 2021 Environmental Program Manager PLAN Hermosa 5-year check-in on milestones (Supported by Massey, Campbell, Armato, Jackson) Initiated by: Council Direction October 26, 2021 Community Development Director/Environmental Program Manager